The SCK CEN Barometer 2011

OPEN REPORT SCK•CEN-BLG-1082

The SCK•CEN Barometer 2011

Perception and attitudes towards nuclear technologies in the Belgian population

C. Turcanu T. Perko J. Schröder

Nuclear Science and Technology Studies (NST) Programme for Integration of Social Aspects into Nuclear Research (PISA) November, 2011

SCK•CEN Boeretang 200 BE-2400 Mol Belgium

OPEN REPORT OF THE BELGIAN NUCLEAR RESEARCH CENTRE SCK•CEN-BLG-1082

The SCK•CEN Barometer 2011

Perception and attitudes towards nuclear technologies in the Belgian population

C. Turcanu T. Perko J. Schröder

Nuclear Science and Technology Studies (NST) Programme for Integration of Social Aspects into Nuclear Research (PISA) November, 2011 Status: Unclassified ISSN 1379-2407

SCK•CEN Boeretang 200 BE-2400 Mol Belgium

Version 2.0

© SCK•CEN Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie Centre d’étude de l’énergie Nucléaire Boeretang 200 BE-2400 Mol Belgium Phone +32 14 33 21 11 Fax +32 14 31 50 21 http://www.sckcen.be Contact: Knowledge Centre [email protected]

RESTRICTED All property rights and copyright are reserved. Any communication or reproduction of this document, and any communication or use of its content without explicit authorization is prohibited. Any infringement to this rule is illegal and entitles to claim damages from the infringer, without prejudice to any other right in case of granting a patent or registration in the field of intellectual property. SCK•CEN, Studiecentrum voor Kernenergie/Centre d'Etude de l'Energie Nucléaire Stichting van Openbaar Nut – Fondation d'Utilité Publique - Foundation of Public Utility Registered Office: Avenue Herrmann Debroux 40 – BE-1160 BRUSSEL Operational Office: Boeretang 200 – BE-2400 MOL

Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... 10 1.

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 11

2.

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 12

2.1.

DATA COLLECTION ........................................................................................................................... 12

2.2.

SAMPLE ......................................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS .................................................................................................................... 13

2.4.

VARIABLES ..................................................................................................................................... 14

2.5.

DATA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................... 14

2.6.

PILOT STUDY................................................................................................................................... 14

2.7.

PRACTICAL DETAILS .......................................................................................................................... 15

3.

RISK PERCEPTION AND CONFIDENCE IN AUTHORITIES .......................................................... 16

3.1.

RISK PERCEPTION – OVERVIEW FOR 2011 ........................................................................................... 16

3.2.

RISK PERCEPTION FACTORS................................................................................................................ 18

3.3.

PERCEPTION OF RADIATION RISKS – HISTORICAL FOLLOW UP AND COMPARISON WITH THE CHEMICAL

DOMAIN ................................................................................................................................................... 20

3.4.

CONFIDENCE IN AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................ 23

3.5.

CONFIDENCE IN AUTHORITIES – HISTORICAL FOLLOW UP AND COMPARISON WITH THE CHEMICAL DOMAIN ..... 25

4.

THE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT FUKUSHIMA............................................................................. 26

5.

OPINIONS, ATTITUDES, TRUST AND KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING THE NUCLEAR ..................... 29

5.1.

ATTITUDE TOWARDS NUCLEAR........................................................................................................... 29

5.2.

OPINION ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY ..................................................................................................... 33

5.3.

FACTORS SEEN AS PLEADING IN FAVOUR OR AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY .................................................... 34

5.4.

SAFETY AND MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES IN BELGIUM ...................................................... 36 1

5.5.

ACTORS IN THE NUCLEAR FIELD .......................................................................................................... 38

5.6.

KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NUCLEAR DOMAIN ........................................................................................ 42

5.7.

EXPERIENCES WITH THE NUCLEAR DOMAIN .......................................................................................... 44

6.

STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING CONCERNING NUCLEAR RESEARCH

INSTALLATIONS........................................................................................................................... 46 6.1.

PAST AND PLANNED INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................... 46

6.2.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................. 48

6.3.

DESCRIPTIVE, SUBJECTIVE AND MORAL NORMS, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND PERCEIVED

INFLUENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 50

6.4.

EXPLANATORY MODELS .................................................................................................................... 52

6.5.

CONFIDENCE IN THE ACTORS ORGANISING PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT............................................................. 55

7.

MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE............................................................................. 58

7.1.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WITH REGARD TO RADIOACTIVE WASTE ............................................................... 58

7.2.

OPINIONS ABOUT GEOLOGICAL DISPOSAL OF HIGH LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE........................................... 62

7.3.

RESPONSIBILITIES IN LIGHT OF THE LONG TERM CHARACTER OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT ............. 66

8.

THE IODINE CAMPAIGN ....................................................................................................... 68

8.1.

RECEPTION OF INFORMATION ............................................................................................................ 69

8.2.

ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION FROM THE IODINE CAMPAIGN ................................................................ 71

8.3.

HEURISTIC VS SYSTEMATIC INFORMATION PROCESSING OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE IODINE CAMPAIGN .. 78

9.

ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY................................................................ 85

9.1.

GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ..................................................................... 85

9.2.

ANOMY ASPECTS IN THE ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ................................................. 87

9.3.

INTEREST IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND REASONS FOR DISINTEREST .................................................. 89

10.

SURVEY EVALUATION BY THE RESPONDENTS ..................................................................... 90

11.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 93

INDEX OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... 95

2

INDEX OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ 97 ERRATUM ................................................................................................................................... 98 ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE - DUTCH ............................................................................................. 99 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................... 99 S7 + S9 .................................................................................................................................................. 100 RISK PERCEPTION AND CONFIDENCE IN AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................... 101 ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 102 ATTITUDE TOWARDS NUCLEAR ENERGY ........................................................................................................ 103 ARGUMENTS PRO-AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY ............................................................................................... 104 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION PROCESSES ............................................................................................. 104 CONFIDENCE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................... 106 ACTORS IN THE NUCLEAR FIELD ................................................................................................................... 106 FUKUSHIMA ............................................................................................................................................ 107 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NUCLEAR DOMAIN ................................................................................................. 108 EXPERIENCES WITH "NUCLEAR" .................................................................................................................. 109 IODINE CAMPAIGN.................................................................................................................................... 110 RADIOACTIVE WASTE ................................................................................................................................ 113 META ................................................................................................................................................... 115 ANNEX 3 – QUESTIONNAIRE - FRENCH ....................................................................................... 116 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 116 RISK PERCEPTION AND CONFIDENCE IN AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................... 118 ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................... 119 ATTITUDE TOWARDS NUCLEAR ENERGY ........................................................................................................ 120 ARGUMENTS PRO-AGAINST NUCLEAR ENERGY ............................................................................................... 121 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN DECISION PROCESSES ............................................................................................. 121 CONFIDENCE IN THE MANAGEMENT OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES ..................................................................... 123 3

ACTORS IN THE NUCLEAR FIELD ................................................................................................................... 123 FUKUSHIMA ............................................................................................................................................ 124 KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NUCLEAR DOMAIN ................................................................................................. 125 EXPERIENCES WITH "NUCLEAR" .................................................................................................................. 126 IODINE CAMPAIGN.................................................................................................................................... 127 Reception of information ....................................................................................................... 127 Acceptance of information from the iodine campaign ..................................................... 128 Heuristic vs systematic information processing of the information from the iodine campaign ....................................................................................................................... 129 RADIOACTIVE WASTE ................................................................................................................................ 130 META ................................................................................................................................................... 132 TECHNICAL ANNEX FROM ASK- MARKET PROBE......................................................................... 134

4

Executive summary

The fourth edition of the SCK•CEN Barometer took place in May-June 2011. It continued the historical follow-up of topics such as risk perception and confidence in authorities, and addressed a number of issues in detail, among which: attitude towards nuclear technologies, confidence in the management of nuclear technologies, stakeholder participation, the accident at Fukushima and the management of high level radioactive waste. The field work was carried out between 25/05/2011 and 24/06/2011 by a market research company (ASK) with professional interviewers. The method employed was CAPI ("Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing"), the answers being directly recoded and stored on a computer hard disk. The population sample consisted of 1020 respondents and it is representative for the Belgium adult population (18+) with respect to gender, age, language (FR or NL), province, habitat and social class. The main results are summarised in the following. Risk perception and confidence in authorities At the outset of the questionnaire we investigated risk perception and confidence in authorities for a number of technological risks, including chemical, radiation related, environmental, lifestyle and individual risks. This list is based on the risk domains investigated in the previous Barometers, with slight modifications in each edition in order to account for current concerns in the Belgian population. Most items in the list have been used since 2002 onwards, in 2011 "fine dust in the air" being included for the first time. Individual risks (cancer, road accident, tobacco and drugs) score highest as regards the risk perception in the Belgian population. These are followed by environmental risks (pollution in general and fine dust) and by industrial risks (waste, accidents, etc.). Lowest risk perception was expressed for medical X-rays and natural radioactivity. Except for the latter two domains, perception of radiation risks has generally increased compared to previous years. This increase is most noticeable as regards risk perception of an accident in a nuclear installation: the number of people with a high or very high risk perception is 34% in 2011, compared to 20% in 2009 and 17% in 2006. For radioactive waste 41% of the respondents perceived the risks from radioactive waste as high or very high in 2011, compared to 28% in 2009 and 26% in 2006. This number is still much less than in 2002 when 65% of the respondents evaluated this risk as high or very high.

5

A similar tendency towards an increasing risk perception between 2006 and 2011 can be observed for an accident in a chemical installation or chemical waste. As a result, when we compare the chemical and the nuclear risks, the perception of the two in 2011 is rather similar. In what concerns the confidence in authorities for the actions undertaken to protect the population from the mentioned risks, on average, the level of confidence in authorities does not give reason for concern. Still, for many domains confidence in authorities has decreased since 2009 to levels similar to 2006. Similar to 2009, radiation from mobile phones ranks as the number one concern as regards the risk management performed by the authorities, followed by natural radiation, fine dust, drugs and environmental pollution in general. Highest confidence is expressed as regards the management of risks from cancer, tobacco use, accidents in nuclear installations, road accidents and medical X-rays. For an accident in a nuclear installation, 42% of the respondents expressed a high or very high confidence in authorities compared to 28% with low or very low confidence. A slightly lower confidence was expressed as regards the management of risks from radioactive waste: 40% of the respondents expressed high or very high confidence, and 31% low or very low. When we compare the nuclear and the chemical domains as regards accidents and waste, the confidence in authorities in the nuclear domain is in 2011 at least as high- if not higher – than in the chemical domain. The accident in Fukushima This issue was addressed by a number of questions related to the relevance and the implications of this accident for Belgium. Results from the survey (carried out in the third month after the after the accident) show that the public opinion was divided as regards the relevance of the accident for Belgium. From the 967 respondents who had heard about the accident, 37% thought that it is relevant for Belgium because there exist flood risks, but almost the exact same percentage (38%) did not agree with this statement. 44% of those who knew about the accident were of the opinion that the accident in Fukushima is not relevant for Belgium, as there are no significant risks of earthquakes or tsunami, while 36% disagreed with this. Whether they found the accident itself relevant for Belgium or not, the disaster induced for the big majority (78% out of 967) a feeling of uncertainty over how well we can predict the risks from nuclear installations. As regards the management of nuclear installations in Belgium, 36% of the 967 respondents who had heard about the accident felt relieved that the nuclear installations in Belgium are well managed, compared to 30% disagreeing this. Somewhat striking was that 49% (out of 967) worry about dangers from Belgian nuclear installations as a result of the accident in Fukushima, but only 33% feel motivated to find out how to protect themselves in case of a nuclear emergency.

6

Opinions, attitudes, trust and knowledge concerning the nuclear The attitude towards nuclear energy was addressed first by general questions, then by a direct question whether the respondent was in favour of nuclear energy or not. The opinion on whether "the reduction of the number of nuclear power plants in Europe is a good cause" has been measured in all SCK•CEN Barometers since 2002. The percentage of respondents agreeing with this statement decreased from 66% in 2002 to 51% in 2006, and 47% in 2009. In 2011 the trend has changed: 61% of respondents agreed with this statement, which is comparable to the year 2002, before the "nuclear renaissance". A moderate change towards a more negative opinion could be observed also with the statement "in general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the disadvantages". In 2011, 30% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, compared to 44% in 2009, while 39% disagreed with this statement in 2011, compared to 26% in 2009. In 2009, the opinions about nuclear energy were rather balanced, with a slightly higher number of respondents in favour (32% pro, 24% against nuclear energy) and a large number of people undecided. In 2011, there is a clear switch: only 18% of the respondents are in favour of nuclear energy, whereas 45% are against. It can also be noticed that, similarly to 2009, more than one third of the population does not take a clear stand as regards nuclear energy. Such changes are not unexpected given the accident in Fukushima and its high media coverage. Opinion surveys conducted in other states revealed similar effects. A closer look into the possible motivations of people's opinions or attitudes towards nuclear energy revealed that the low CO2, the energy independence and the reliability of energy supply are seen as the main factors pleading in favour of nuclear energy. The most negative aspects in the view of the respondents are the radioactive waste and the possible misuse of nuclear technologies. Concerning the safety and the management of nuclear installations in Belgium, the nuclear reactors in Belgium are generally considered to be operated in a safe manner: 43% agree with this, while 20% disagree. Opposite to this, a question on the perceived feeling of safety as regards risks from nuclear installations revealed that 34% of the respondents feel well protected (vs. 43% in 2009 and only 18% in 2002), while 40% feel unsafe (vs. 28% in 2009 and 56% in 2002). As regards the control of nuclear installations, the radioactive waste storage and the transport of radioactive materials, opinions are once more divided. The questions on the actors in the nuclear field revealed, similar to 2009, that most of them are little known in the Belgian population. Although it remains low (except for GdF-SUEZ which is familiar to 95% of the population), the level of knowledge has slightly increased for some actors since 2009. In 2011, 32% know SCK•CEN (vs. 28% in 2009), 23% know IAEA (15% in 2009), 19% know FANC (15% in 2009), 15% know the Belgian Nuclear Forum (14% in 2009), 24% know IRE (26% in 2009), 11% know NIRAS (12% in 2009), 17% know Belgoprocess and only 5% know BelV. With the exception of journalists, environmental organisations and medical doctors, the competence of the 7

various actors is evaluated higher than trustworthiness as regards the risks and benefits of nuclear technologies. Finally, we assessed the general knowledge in the Belgian population about the nuclear field. People know much better in 2011 the location of Belgian NPP's as compared to 2009. However, only 34% know what is the exact contribution of nuclear energy in the energy mix (29% in 2009), while 26% overestimate this contribution (30% in 2009).The use of nuclear technologies for the production of electricity and in the medical field is well known. The results show that people lack knowledge in basic issues such as, for instance, that exposure to radiation does not necessarily lead to contamination (31% answered correctly and 59% answered incorrectly to this question). Some other results: 91% know that radioactivity can be measured with special equipment, but only 53% know the measurement unit. Public participation in decision making As regards public participation in decision making on new research installations, the most influencing factors in the explanatory models constructed were the attitude towards participation and the moral norms. The more one believes that participation is a positive behaviour and the more one feels that it is a citizen's duty, the more likely it is that one would take part in activities of public involvement in decision making. The analysis revealed that subjective and descriptive norms are also important predictors. The more one feels support from the close environment (family, friends), and the more one sees the focal behaviour exercised among the people known best, the more likely he/she is to commit to a higher degree of involvement. Finally, time constraints may play an important role, but financial constraints prove inconsequential. As regards the organisation of the public involvement, the most trusted actors are the independent organisations (e.g. universities) and local action groups. Radioactive waste The general aim of the section on radioactive waste was to investigate peoples’ opinion about intermediate and high level radioactive waste (HLW) management (RWM) and participation with regard to this topic. When asked for reasons not to participate in consultations about RWM, only few people state it is not of concern to them, but quite many state they are not interested in the topic. Next to lack of interest, the idea that it will have little influence on the final decision comes out as an equally important reason not to participate in consultations about RWM. When comparing answers related to participation to an actual consultation that took place in the past (concerning the Waste Plan and the SEA) with answers related to willingness to participate in a similar consultation in the future, the questionnaire seems to reveal a divergence between peoples’ actual behaviour and their stated intentions. If the option of geological disposal would be chosen to manage HLW, this would not influence peoples’ opinion about the further development of nuclear energy. The survey results show the percentage of respondents that consider geological disposal to be a 8

solution for HLW to be very limited. Yet there is equally limited support for the statement that the long term management of radioactive waste should be left to future generations, if no solution exists today. The responsibility for dealing with radioactive waste lies with the generations that receive the benefits of the nuclear power. Nevertheless, future generations should have access to it and be able to apply their own management techniques. The information campaign related to nuclear/radiological emergency management and preventive distribution of iodine tablets The campaign related to pre-distribution of iodine tablets was highly acknowledged by Belgian population, 68% of the respondents being aware of this campaign. Most people knowing about the campaign have also insight in the details of preventive distribution of iodine tablets, for instance where to get iodine tablets and what is their use. However, one third of the population (28%) believes that the tablets can provide protection also for against other types of cancers than thyroid cancer, e.g. for leukaemia. It is also important to notice that 24% of the population would take the tablets immediately in the case of a nuclear alarm, rather than waiting for instructions. In general results show that people are quite positive as regards the distribution of iodine tablets. Eight people out of ten support this distribution and oppose the claim that they are a waste of money. Results of communication research using the iodine pre-distribution campaign as a case study show that the higher is the trust one has in experts, the more he/she is likely to accept the communicated messages. Another influential predictor for the acceptance of communicated messages is the systematic information processing mode. If a person made a decision related to iodine tablets based on rationality, e.g. taking more effort to process and check the information and to make a decision, then he/she is more likely to have accepted the messages of the iodine campaign. Attitude towards science and technology In general the public attitude toward science and technology (S&T) in Belgium is positive. For instance 70% of respondents stated that S&T makes life healthier, easier and more comfortable. The interest in S&T increased with 7% in 2011 compared to 2009; however 43% respondents are still not interested. The main reasons for disinterest are that people do not care about S&T or that they do not understand it. Our initial research hypothesis that an individual's feelings of anomy (e.g. perceived social instability and the feeling of being lost) might be an influential predictor for the general attitude towards science and technology was not supported by the data.

9

Acknowledgements This research was done in close cooperation with the University of Antwerp and steered by an international expert committee. We would like to thank the members of the steering committee for their valuable comments and the helpful discussions: Prof. Peter Thijssen, University of Antwerp Prof. Richard Eiser, University of Sheffield, U.K. Prof. Baldwin van Gorp, University Leuven Frank Hardeman, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK•CEN Geert Volckaert, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK•CEN Gilbert Eggermont, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB. Gaston Meskens, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre, SCK•CEN We would also like to thank all the participants in the pilot study and all our colleagues from SCK•CEN who helped with improving the questions. This research was partly funded in the framework of the general agreement on R&D between SCK•CEN and GdF-SUEZ.

10

1. Introduction Since 2002 the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK•CEN conducts periodical largescale (N > 1000) public opinion surveys among the Belgian population. The sample of people interviewed is representative for the Belgian adult population with respect to province, region, level of urbanisation, gender, age and professionally active status. The large sample size of the survey allows highlighting general trends and conducting detailed analysis of subgroups of the population. The data collection method employed is Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing, consisting of personal interviews of about 45 minutes carried out at the home of the respondents, the answers being directly recorded on a portable hard disk. The field work is performed by a market research company with professional interviewers. Alongside recurrent issues such as perception of various risks, confidence in risk regulators or opinions about the use of nuclear energy, the SCK•CEN Barometer surveys include detailed research sections on topics such as emergency planning (2002), food safety (2006), communication (2009), stakeholder participation and information processing (2011). The main research aims are i) the historical follow up of repeated topics and; ii) the theoretical foundation for new topics with in-depth analysis of the relations between different variables. Previous editions The first edition of the SCK•CEN Risk Perception Barometer took place in 2002 (Carlé, and Hardeman, 2003). The questionnaire used at the time was based on the IRSN French Barometer and allowed for comparisons between the French and the Belgian population. An additional research section addressed expert functioning. The second Barometer, in 2006 (Van Aeken et al, 2006), focused on acceptance of food legal norms, and public acceptance of countermeasures for the food chain in the aftermath of a nuclear accident and related consumers' behaviour. The third edition of the SCK•CEN Risk Perception Barometer was realised in 2009 (Perko et al, 2010). The special topic of this survey was information processing in nuclear/radiological emergency management – part of PhD research- and aimed at highlighting potential predictors, heuristic or systematic, for information reception and acceptance. Three settings were used to validate the research hypotheses: the iodine preventive distribution campaign, the communication in a real radiological incident and communication in emergency preparedness. In 2011, for the fourth edition of the Barometer, the research was focused on the following themes:  The perception of the nuclear accident in Fukushima;

11

  



The changes in public attitudes towards nuclear and the main associations behind peoples' favourable or unfavourable attitude towards nuclear energy; The attitude towards and the potential predictors for the public engagement in decision processes related to new nuclear research installations; Information processing in emergency preparedness: reception and acceptance of information from the campaign for preventive distribution of stable iodine tables in the general population and in a longitudinal sample of ~100 respondents; heuristic and systematic information processing; The outreach of and opinion towards a public consultation and peoples' opinion with regard to the management of high level waste.

The full questionnaire is included in Annex. A summary of the topics is presented in the figure below. Background (socio-demographic) variables Risk perception for 16 items Confidence in authorities for 16 items Attitude towards science and technology Attitude towards nuclear Factors shaping opinion about nuclear energy Participation in decision processes on nuclear research installations Confidence in the management of nuclear technologies Actors in the nuclear field Knowledge about nuclear Experience with nuclear Information processing in the iodine campaign Management of high level radioactive waste Evaluation of the survey by the respondent

Fig. 1 Summary of survey items

2. Methodology 2.1. Data collection Similar to the previous editions of the SCK•CEN Barometer, data were collected using CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviews), as it provides good access to data and the possibility to immediately access intermediate results. This method entails personal interviews taken by a professional interviewer at the home of the respondent, with answers directly recoded and stored on computer hard disk. The field work was carried out between 25/05/2011 and 24/06/2011 by a market research company (ASK) with professional interviewers. 12

A quality control of the data was done both during the interviews, as well as at the end of the field work. 2.2. Sample Two populations were included in the study:  A large sample (N=1020) from the general population in Belgium, representative for the adult (18+) population with respect to province, region, gender, age, level of urbanisation (habitat) and professionally active status.  A population sample used for the longitudinal study of the iodine preventive distribution campaign, composed of respondents having participated in the 2009 survey that expressed willingness to participate in a next edition of the survey (N=100). For the Belgian sample, a stratified quota sampling was applied. First, stratification was made by cross-tabulating the 11 provinces (10 provinces and Brussels) with 4 levels of urbanisation. This resulted in a matrix consisting of 37 cells (and not 44, since, for instance, some provinces don't have large cities). In a second stage, an aselect sample of communities was drawn for each of these cells. For each community a number of interviews was chosen (a multiple of 5), depending on the number of inhabitants in that community. Finally, for each community selected, the interviews were organised such as to fill a predefined quota for gender, age (divided in three categories), professionally active (to ensure that the proportion of retired persons taking part in the survey does not exceed the national level) and social class. For the latter, a control was done to ensure the representativeness of the two highest classes, which might be underrepresented in surveys due to a higher non-response rate. In total, about 100 interview points were selected. The participation degree was 63% (605 refusals). 2.3. Questionnaire items Most questions in the survey were formulated as statements, to which the respondent could answer using a five points Likert-scale (e.g. <strong disagreement, disagreement, undecided, agreement, strong agreement>), plus a sixth category (<no answer/don't know>). The latter answering option was allowed, but not encouraged (interviewers were specifically instructed for this purpose). To avoid question-order effects, randomization or rotation was applied whenever deemed appropriate (e.g. for the 16 risk items related to which we investigated risk perception).

13

2.4. Variables For the in-depth analysis of the relation between different variables, multiple item constructs were used whenever possible, in order to increase the reliability of the measurement and to enhance the measurement scale. In this way, most variables used in regression analysis, for instance, were assumed to be measured on a (pseudo) interval or ratio scale, rather than a categorical scale. The formal test for the reliability of the scales constructed with multiple items was the calculation of Cronbach's alpha. When this coefficient exceeds 0.70, it indicates a reliable scale. Factor analysis was employed to determine the extent to which the various items are components of a one-dimensional construct. 2.5. Data analysis The statistical package SPSS was used for all the statistical analyses. A 95% confidence level was assumed, unless otherwise stated. For a sample larger than 1000, as in our survey, the maximum error margin (in percentage points) of any estimation is not expected to exceed 3.1 %. While this is very reasonable, caution is due if low percentages of a certain category are examined. If, for instance, a mere 3% of the sample falls into a certain category (e.g. ), the confidence interval stretches from 0% to 6.1%. 2.6. Pilot study A pilot study was carried out as a pre-test of the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to fill in a paper version of the questionnaire after which individual discussions with the interviewer took place. Respondents were also encouraged to write the comments next to the questions. This gave us an opportunity to identify any problems people might have, e.g. with regard to terms or phrases that are found to be confusing or questions that are found to be too difficult to answer, and to verify that the questions were interpreted in the same way by different respondents. The pilot study was performed on 13/05/2011 and between 16-18/05/2011. With one exception, the interviews were conducted at the University of Antwerp and among newly employed personnel of SCK•CEN. In total, 49 surveys were realized, among which two in French, nine in English and 38 in Dutch. The average duration of the interview was 35 minutes (ranging from 10 minutes to 60 minutes). Prior to respondents starting to fill in the questionnaire, the interviewers made an introduction that briefly explained the purpose of the study and also included messages that are known to be important for encouraging people to respond: (a) a promise that the respondent's answers will be kept confidential; (b) an explanation of how they were 14

selected (when requested); (c) an estimate of the time needed to complete the survey (30 min); (d) a that all the respondents' comments will be analysed together in individual discussions. A qualitative analysis of the results obtained was used to produce an improved version of the questionnaire. 2.7. Practical details The field work was committed to the ASK market research company. The interviews were carried out in the language chosen by the respondent: Dutch or French. These two languages are the official languages in Belgium, together with German which is spoken by a small community. The technical report from ASK is included in Annex. Time line:            

Preparation of methodology document and first version of the questionnaire: October 2010 –January 2011 Meeting with GdF-SUEZ - 8 December 2011 Meeting with the steering committee: 28 February 2011 Improvement of the questionnaire and final decision on which items will be kept for the 2011 edition: March 2011 Sending of offers to public opinion research companies for executing the field work: end of March 2011 Evaluation of offers: 10-15 April 2011. Commission of field work: mid of May 2011 (delays due to discussions regarding one of the research items, which at the end was eliminated). Pilot study: 13/05/2011 till 18/05/2011. Final version of questionnaire in three languages: 19/05/2011. Testing the CAPI software: 20/05/2011. Briefing of interviewers (Brussels): 23/05/2011. Field work: from 25/05/2011 till 24/06/2011 Analysis of results: ongoing (BLG report ready in November).

15

3. Risk perception and confidence in authorities 3.1. Risk perception – overview for 2011 Individual health risks (cancer, road accidents, tobacco, drugs) are the biggest concerns in the general population, followed by the environmental pollution. Risk perception is a recurrent theme in the SCK•CEN surveys since the first edition in 2002. The item covers a number of industrial, individual, environmental and other risks. People's perception of how high or how low these risks are is measured with the following question: "How do you evaluate the risks for an ordinary citizen of Belgium, for each of the listed topics?" In 2011, 16 risk domains were addressed in the survey (see Table 1). Table 1 Risk perception items in 2011 (ITEMS RANDOMIZED) How do you evaluate the risks for each of the listed topics for an ordinary citizen of Belgium? RP 1 Road accidents RP 2 Tobacco RP 3 Drugs RP 4 Cancer RP 5 Environmental pollution RP 6 Radioactive waste RP 7 Chemical waste RP 8 An accident in a chemical installation RP 9 An accident in a nuclear installation RP 10 Radiation from mobile phones (cell phones) RP 11 Natural radiation (e.g. radon or radiation from space) RP 12 Medical X-rays RP 13 Residues of pesticides and herbicides on fruit and vegetables RP 14 A terrorist attack with a radioactive source RP 15 RP 16

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very low Low Average High Very high

9. Don't know / no answer

Residues of radioactivity in food Fine dust in the air

This list is based on previous Barometers, with slight modifications in each edition of the survey in order to account for current concerns in the Belgian population at the time of the questionnaire. Most items in the list have been used since 2002 onwards. In 2011 risk perception for "fine dust in the air" was included in the list for the first time.

16

The following graph presents a ranked listing of the 16 risk domains, in decreasing order with respect to the proportion of the respondents expressing a high or a very high risk perception.

Fig. 2 Risk perception of various risk items: overview for 2011

Individual and lifestyle risks (cancer, road accident, tobacco and drugs) score highest as regards the risk perception in the Belgian population. These are followed environmental risks (pollution in general, fine dust) and by industrial risks (waste, accident, etc.). At the lower end, with lowest percentages of respondents expressing a high or very high risk perception were the medical X-rays and the natural radioactivity.

17

3.2. Risk perception factors Perception of radiation depends on the source of radiation. For instance radiation from X rays belongs to the group of risks related to environment, while perception of an accident in a nuclear installation belongs to the group of risks related to industry, including the chemical industry.

In order to assess the relationships among sets of interrelated risk items, a Principal Component Analysis was carried out, with direct Oblimin rotation and Kaizer normalisation (see Table 2) . The analysis revealed three factors extracted based on the criterion that the eigenvalues should be larger than 1 together with an examination of the scree plot. These three factors account for 58% of the variance in the data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy (0.9) and Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ 2=6139, df = 120, Sig.<0.0001) indicate that conducting a factor analysis on these data was appropriate. Table 2 shows the loading of the different risk perception items on the three factors extracted. The first factor could be labelled as ‘industrial risks’, the second is mainly related to ‘individual health risks’, whereas the third factor is related to ‘environmental risks’. We can notice that the radiation risks from medical X-rays, mobile phones and natural radiation belong to a clearly different category than, for instance, risks from nuclear accidents or radioactive waste. Whereas the former are associated more with environmental risks, the latter as seen as industry related risks. It can also be noticed that the risk perception for residues of radioactivity in food loads almost equally on both the first and the third factor which could be explained by the nature of this risk: it is an industrial risks (that may occur after a nuclear accident or incident), but it is also related to the subsequent environmental pollution.

Table 2 Pattern matrix for PCA on risk perception items Only loadings > 0.4 are displayed 18

Component 1 An accident in a nuclear installation (RP9i)

.884

A terrorist attack with a radioactive source (RP14i)

.859

An accident in a chemical installation (RP8i)

.815

Radioactive waste (RP6i)

.726

Chemical waste (RP7i)

.614

Residues of radioactivity in food (RP15i)

.478

2

3

.445

Tobacco (RP3i)

.787

Road accidents (RP1i)

.754

Tobacco (RP2i)

.695

Cancer (RP4i)

.659

Radiation from mobile phones (RP10i)

.853

Fine dust in the air (RP16i)

.785

Residues of pesticides and herbicides on fruit and vegetables (RP13i)

.702

Medical X-rays (RP12i)

.563

Natural radiation (radon or cosmic) (RP11i)

.548

Environmental pollution (RP5i)

.469

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

19

3.3. Perception of radiation risks – historical follow up and comparison with the chemical domain

Nuclear accidents generate more concerns than in previous years. The perception of risks from nuclear accidents or from radioactive waste is very similar to the same risks in the chemical domain.

The questions on risk perception show an increase in the number of people having a high or very high risk perception of an accident in a nuclear installation: 34% in 2011, compared to 20% in 2009 and 17% in 2006. A similar tendency, but with smaller changes, can be observed for the risk perception of an accident in a chemical installation.

Fig. 3 Risk perception of nuclear and chemical accidents in 2006, 2009 and 2011

20

Concerns related to radioactive waste have also increased compared to 2006 and 2009. In 2011 41% of the respondents perceived the risks from radioactive waste as high or very high, compared to 28% in 2009 and 26% in 2006. However, this is still much less than in 2002 when 65% of the respondents evaluated this risk as high or very high.

Fig. 4 Risk perception of nuclear and chemical waste in 2006, 2009 and 2011 For the perception of risks from chemical waste, a 10% change towards a higher risk perception has occurred between 2006 and 2009; in case of the radioactive waste, this change took place between 2009 and 2011. As a result, risk perception of radioactive and chemical waste has reached similar levels in 2011. Figure 5 allows comparing risk perception between 2006 and 2011 for radiation risks, chemical risks and environmental pollution.

21

Fig. 5 Risk perception of radiation risks, chemical risks and environmental pollution in 2006, 2009 and 2011 For environmental pollution and chemical waste, risk perception has remained stable since 2009. A small change towards less concern can be noticed for the following radiation risks: natural radiation (including Rn) and medical X-rays. For all other risks illustrated in Fig. 5, perception has slightly moved towards higher levels.

22

3.4. Confidence in authorities Although the confidence in authorities for the actions undertaken to protect the population against risks from the accidents in nuclear installations has decreased in the last years, the management of this risk is among the most trusted. The same list of potential risks was used to assess the confidence people have in authorities as regards the actions taken for their protection against the mentioned risks (Table 2). Table 3 Items for confidence in authorities in 2011 (ITEMS RANDOMIZED) Please state how much confidence you have in the authorities for the actions they undertake to protect the population against risks from each of the following items. RC 1 Road accidents RC 2 Tobacco RC 3 Drugs RC 4 Cancer RC 5 Environmental pollution RC 6 Radioactive waste RC 7 Chemical waste RC 8 An accident in a chemical installation RC 9 An accident in a nuclear installation RC 10 Radiation from mobile phones (cell phones) RC 11 Natural radiation (e.g. radon or radiation from space) RC 12 Medical X-rays RC 13 Residues of pesticides and herbicides on fruit and vegetables RC 14 A terrorist attack with a radioactive source RC 15 Residues of radioactivity in food RC 16 Fine dust in the air

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very little Little Average Quite a lot Very much

9. Don't know / no answer

This is measured since 2002 in each edition of the SCK•CEN Barometer. The figure below displays the items ordered from top to bottom in the order of increasing numbers of respondents expressing a high or very high confidence in authorities. Similar to 2009, radiation from mobile phones still ranks as the number one concern as regards the risk management performed by the authorities, followed by natural radiation, fine dust, drugs and environmental pollution in general. Highest confidence is expressed as regards the management of risks from cancer, tobacco use, accidents in nuclear installations, road accidents and medical X-rays. 23

Fig. 6 Confidence in authorities: overview for 2011 For an accident in nuclear installation, 42% of the respondents have high or very high confidence in authorities compared to 28% with low or very low confidence. A slightly lower confidence was expressed as regards the management of risks from radioactive waste: 40% of the respondendents expressed high or very high confidence, and 31% low or very low.

24

3.5. Confidence in authorities – historical follow up and comparison with the chemical domain Confidence in authorities has decreased since 2009 for all domains listed in Fig. 7 to levels similar to 2006. When we compare the nuclear and the chemical domains as regards accidents and waste, the confidence in authorities in the nuclear domain is in 2011 at least as high- if not higher – that in the chemical domain.

Fig. 7 Confidence in authorities in 2006, 2009 and 2011 for radiation risks, chemical risks and environmental pollution

25

4. The nuclear accident at Fukushima Opinions are divided on the relevance for Belgium of the nuclear accident in Fukushima. In general the accident induced high uncertainty among the Belgian population as regards potential risks. In March 2011 a severe nuclear accident took place in Japan, at the nuclear power plants in Fukushima. A number of questions related to the implications of this accident for Belgium were asked to the respondents. These questions were filtered by a preliminary question (see Table 4) assessing if the respondents had heard of this accident. For this topic it is important to take into account that the interviews were conducted in the third month after the accident. Table 4 Filter question related to the Fukushima accident Filter question FU 1

Have you heard about the nuclear accident at Fukushima (Japan) following the recent earthquake and tsunami?

1. Yes 2. No

From the 1020 respondents interviewed, the huge majority (95%) have heard of the accident in Fukushima. These 967 respondents were then asked to answer a series of questions concerning the relevance of this accident for Belgium (Table 5). Table 5 Items related to the accident in Fukushima If FU1=Yes: We would like to know what is your opinion about this accident. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: What happened in Japan: FU 2

Is irrelevant to BE because there is no significant risk of earthquakes or tsunami.

FU 3

Is relevant to BE because there is a flood risk.

FU 4

Makes me more worried about the dangers from BE nuclear installations

FU 5

Makes me feel relieved that our NPP's in Belgium are well managed

FU 6

Makes me feel that we can never predict all possible risks from nuclear installations

FU 7

Prompts me to find out how I could protect myself in a nuclear emergency

1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Undecided 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 9. I don't know/ no answer

26

Results show (see Fig. 8) that the public opinion was divided as regards the relevance of the accident for Belgium. From the 967 respondents who had heard about the accident, 37% of the respondents thought that the accident in Japan is relevant for Belgium because there are flood risks, but almost the exact same percentage (38%) did not agree with this statement. 44% of the respondents (out of the 967) were of the opinion that the accident in Fukushima is not relevant for Belgium, since as there are no significant risks of earthquakes or tsunami, while 36% disagreed with this. For the big majority (78% out of 967) the accident in Fukushima induced a feeling of uncertainty over how well we can predict the risks from nuclear installations.

Fig. 8 Opinions and feelings triggered by the accident at Fukushima (part 1), N=967

As regards the management of nuclear installations in Belgium, 36% of the respondents of the 967 who had heard about the accident felt relieved that the nuclear installations in Belgium are well managed compared to 30% disagreeing this. What is somewhat striking is that 49% (out of 967) worry about dangers from Belgian nuclear installations, but only 33% want to know how to protect themselves in case of a nuclear emergency.

27

Fig. 9 Opinions and feelings triggered by the accident at Fukushima (part 2), N=967

28

5. Opinions, attitudes, trust and knowledge concerning the nuclear 5.1. Attitude towards nuclear The increasing positive attitude towards nuclear energy observed in the previous decade has changed. Attitudes towards nuclear energy are slightly less negative than in the years before the "nuclear renaissance".

Similar to the survey of 2009, the attitude towards nuclear energy was first assessed through a number of general questions on which the respondents had to state their agreement or disagreement degree. These questions are presented in the table below.

Table 6 Items on the attitude towards nuclear energy Please state how much you agree or disagree with the following statements: RT 1

In general, I believe that the benefits/ advantages of nuclear energy outweigh the disadvantages.

RT 3

The reduction of the number of nuclear power plants in Europe is a good cause.

MN 7

Nuclear power plants endanger the future of our children.

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree 9. Don't know / no answer

29

The opinion on whether "the reduction of the number of nuclear power plants in Europe is a good cause" has been measured in all SCK•CEN Barometers since 2002. The percentage of respondents agreeing with this statement decreased from 66% in 2002 to 51% in 2006, and 47% in 2009. In 2011 the trend has changed: 61% of respondents agreed with this statement, which is comparable to the year 2002, before what is sometimes referred to as the "nuclear renaissance" (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10 On the reduction of NPP's in Europe, N=1020

30

The negative switch in the attitude towards nuclear energy was observed also with the statement "in general, the benefits of nuclear energy outweigh the disadvantages". In 2011, 30% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, compared to 44% in 2009, and 39% disagreed in 2011, compared to 26% in 2009. This is illustrated in the figure below.

Fig. 11 On the benefits vs. disadvantages of nuclear energy, N=1020 Another issue studied since 2002 was whether the respondents thought that the "nuclear power plants endanger the future of our children".

31

Fig. 12 On the possibly negative influence of nuclear power plants on children's future, N=1020 For this item, the results in 2011 were very similar to those obtained in 2009 (and 2002). Only a minor increase in the percentage of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement could be observed as compared to 2009. A factor analysis performed on the three items discussed above showed that a scale can be constructed, measuring the attitude towards nuclear energy. The Principal Axis Factoring resulted in one factor with eigenvalue larger than 1, which accounts for 64% of the variance in the data. Table 7 shows the loading of the three different items. Table 7 Factor matrix for items on attitude towards nuclear energy Factor 1 RT1 In general, I believe that the benefits/ advantages of nuclear energy outweigh the disadvantages (Inverted).

.732

RT3 The reduction of the number of nuclear power plants in Europe is a good cause.

.705

MN7 Nuclear power plants endanger the future of our children.

.609

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy (0.67) and Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ2=564, df = 3, Sig.<0.0001) indicated that conducting a factor analysis on these data was appropriate. The reliability of the scale constructed with the three items is α=0.72. 32

5.2. Opinion about nuclear energy Less people are in favour of nuclear energy; more than a third do not have a clear stand. Opinion about nuclear energy was measured by a direct question (item RT4 in Annex) on whether the respondent was in favour of nuclear energy or not. Table 8 Item assessing the opinion about nuclear energy RT 4

What is your opinion about nuclear energy?

I am: 1. totally in favour 2. rather in favour 3. neither in favour nor against 4. rather against 5. totally against 9. Don’t know/no answer

A change of attitude towards a more negative opinion about nuclear energy could be noticed in 2011 compared to 2009 (see Fig. 13). In 2009, the opinions about nuclear energy were rather balanced, with a slightly higher number of respondents in favour (32% pro, 24% against nuclear energy) and a large number of people undecided.

Fig. 13 Opinion about nuclear energy, N=1020 33

In 2011, there is a clear switch1: only 18% of the respondents are in favour of nuclear energy, whereas 45% are against. It can also be noticed that, similarly to 2009, more than one third of the population does not take a clear stand as regards nuclear energy. The tendency highlighted above has been confirmed also by other items measuring the attitude concerning the use of nuclear energy, as illustrated in the next section. 5.3. Factors seen as pleading in favour or against nuclear energy The most positive aspect of nuclear energy is the low CO2, the most negative aspect is radioactive waste. Next, the respondents were given a list of issues and were asked to state whether they considered these as factors pleading in favour or against nuclear energy. Table 9 Items on arguments in favour or against nuclear energy (RANDOMIZED ITEMS)

Concerning nuclear energy in Belgium, several aspects are continuously being discussed. In your opinion, do the following factors plead against or in favour of nuclear energy? NE1 NE2 NE3 NE4 NE5 NE6 NE7 NE8 NE9 NE10

This factor pleads: 1. Strongly against The transparency of nuclear industry nuclear energy 2. Rather against Safety of nuclear installations in Belgium nuclear energy Nuclear waste 3. Neither against, Possible misuse of nuclear technologies by terrorists nor in favour of High energy production from small number of sites (2 in nuclear energy Belgium) 4. Rather in favour Nuclear energy makes us dependent on large multinationals of nuclear energy Nuclear energy helps our national energy independence. 5. Strongly in favour of nuclear The costs of electricity produced in nuclear power plants. energy Low CO2 emissions during electricity production in nuclear 9. I don't know/NA power plants. Reliability of energy supply by nuclear power plants in Belgium.

1

In April 2011 a European survey by Gallup International Association had reported one month after the accident in Fukushima that 34% of the Belgian sample was favourable to nuclear energy and 57% unfavourable, versus 43% favourable and 46% unfavourable before the accident in Japan. Note that no middle answering category was used to account for undecided people and that the sample was taken from the 15+ population (instead of 18+ as in our sample). 34

A closer look into the possible motivations of people's opinions or attitudes towards nuclear energy is provided by these items, depicted in Fig. 14. Results show that the main factors pleading in favour of nuclear energy are the low CO2 -with 52% of the respondents having the opinion that this factor pleads in favour or strongly in favour of nuclear energy-, followed by the energy independence (47%) and reliability of energy supply (45%).

Fig. 14 Factors seen as pleading in favour or against nuclear energy, N=1020 The main factors that are considered to plead against nuclear energy are by far the radioactive waste and the possible misuse of nuclear technologies: 76%, respectively 69% think these are negative aspects of nuclear energy that plead against its use for electricity production.

35

5.4. Safety and management of nuclear technologies in Belgium

Most people think that nuclear reactors in Belgium are operated in a safe manner; opinions diverge over the control of nuclear installations, the storage of radioactive waste and the transport of radioactive materials.

A number of questions in the survey enquired about the respondents' confidence in the management of nuclear technologies. Table 10 Items regarding the confidence in the management of nuclear technologies (ITEMS RANDOMIZED)

Please state how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements: MN 1

Nuclear reactors in Belgium are operated in a safe manner

MN 2

There is insufficient control by authorities on the safety in nuclear installations in Belgium

MN 3

I believe that in Belgium radioactive waste is stored in a safe manner.

MN 4

The transport of radioactive materials is not safe.

MN 5

Production of fuel for NPP’s causes environmental damage.

MN 6

I feel well protected against risks from nuclear installations

1. Completely disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neutral 4. Agree 5. Completely agree 9. Don't know / no answer

As regards risks from nuclear installations, the question on the perceived feeling of safety (MN6) revealed that 34% of the respondents feel well protected (vs. 43% in 2009 and only 18% in 2002), while 40% feel unsafe (vs. 28% in 2009 and 56% in 2002), see Fig.15. While this shows more concern in the population as compared to 2009, this is expressed at a considerably lower level than in 2002.

36

Fig. 15 Perceived safety of nuclear installations, N=1020

A number of other questions in the 2011 survey measured the confidence in the safe management of nuclear technologies, for different phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, as presented in Figure 16. 43% of the respondents think that nuclear reactors in Belgium are operated in a safe manner, while 20% disagree with this statement. Opinions are divided concerning the control on the safety of installations, the transport of radioactive material and the storage of radioactive waste in Belgium. 38% of the respondents think that there is sufficient control on the safety of installations, whereas a similar percentage of respondents (34%) think that there is insufficient control. Similarly, 34% think that the transport of radioactive materials is safe, while 39% think that it is unsafe; and 38% think that there is sufficient control by authorities on the safety of nuclear installations in Belgium, while 35% think the opposite, i.e. that the control is not sufficient. Finally, more than half (59%) of the respondents think that the production of nuclear fuel damages the environment.

37

Fig. 16 Management of nuclear technologies, N=1020

5.5. Actors in the nuclear field

On average, the technical competence is evaluated higher than trustworthiness. SCK•CEN has a high recognition for its competence in the nuclear domain The respondents were asked to indicate their familiarity with a list of actors in the nuclear field. For the actors they knew, they were asked to state their opinion whether the actor “is telling the truth about risks and benefits of nuclear technologies” and how he/she evaluated the actor as “technically competent in this domain". Not knowing an actor acted as a filter for further enquiring about "telling truth" and "technically competent"

38

Table 11 Items on knowledge about and trustworthiness and competence of actors in the nuclear field (ITEMS RANDOMIZED) If you know the following actors can you tell us if you think they are telling the truth about the risks and benefits of nuclear technologies and if they are technically competent in this field? Ai: Bi: Ci: Know Telling Technically them the truth competent 1. The government 2. Environmental organisations 3. Electrabel GDF-Suez (owner of nuclear power plants) 4. The journalists 5. FANC (Federal Agency for Nuclear Control) 6. Medical doctors 7. NIRAS (National agency for radioactive waste and enriched fissile materials) 8. IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) in Vienna 9. IRE (National Institute for Radioelements), Fleurus. 10. SCK·CEN (the Belgian Nuclear Research Institute) in Mol. 11. Scientists from Universities 12. The Belgian nuclear forum 13. The army 14. Bel V, a controlling body 15. Belgoprocess, a company specialised in radioactive waste management and decommissioning of nuclear facilities

Knowledge: 1. Yes 2. No Truth & comp: 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 9. Don't know / no answer

The main actors in the nuclear field are not well known in the Belgian population. Although it remains low (except for GdF-SUEZ which is familiar to 95% of the population), the level of knowledge has slightly increased for some actors since 2009. In 2011, 32% know SCK•CEN (vs. 28% in 2009), 23% know IAEA (15% in 2009), 19% know FANC (15% in 2009), 15% know the Belgian Nuclear Forum (14% in 2009), 24% know IRE (26% in 2009), 11% know NIRAS (12% in 2009), 17% know Belgoprocess and only 5% know BelV.

39

Fig.17 Actors in the nuclear field: knowledge, truth and competence

40

The number of respondents familiar with SCK•CEN has increased in 2011 to 32%, compared to 28% in 2009. From those who know SCK•CEN in 2011, 41% agreed or strongly agreed that it is telling the truth about the risks and benefits of nuclear technologies, while only 24% disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement. In what concerns SCK•CEN's competence in the nuclear field, an overwhelming 74% of the respondents who know SCK•CEN agreed or strongly agreed that it is competent, compared to only 9% who disagreed. A closer look at the mean values of trustworthiness and competence of nuclear actors in what regards risks and benefits of nuclear technologies allows determining some patterns in people's perception, as illustrated in Fig. 18. The scales extend from 1 (worst) to 5 (best) with the average score 3. When interpreting Fig. 18, one has to keep in mind however that some of the actors are very little known in the Belgian population (e.g. BelV, the Belgian Nuclear Forum, NIRAS).

Fig. 18 Nuclear actors depicted on the axes of trustworthiness (horizontal) and technical competence (vertical) The figure depicts in green colour the actors that score above average on both trustworthiness and technical competence, in yellow colour the actors that score above average in only one dimension and in red those that score below average in both 41

dimensions. As it can be noticed from this illustration, with the exception of journalists, environmental organisations and medical doctors, the technical competence is on average evaluated higher than the trustworthiness. Among the respondents who know the respective actors, scientists from universities and medical doctors score highest among all actors as regards trustworthiness, followed at some distance by environmental organisations, IAEA and SCK•CEN. Scientists from universities, the IAEA, SCK•CEN and NIRAS score highest among all actors from the point of view of technical competence. 5.6. Knowledge about the nuclear domain People have better knowledge about the location of nuclear power plants in Belgium than in the past. However general knowledge related to basic issues is still low; half of the population does not know that the measurement unit for radioactivity is the Bq. Similarly to the 2009 edition of the survey, a number of questions were asked in order to assess the knowledge in the general public concerning the nuclear domain and the applications of radioactivity. The questions were selected and adapted from: i) the EUROBAROMETER studies – special surveys related to nuclear and radiological topics conducted in all European countries (e.g. Eurobarometer 271 of 2006 and Eurobarometers 324 and 297 of 2008); ii) the 2009 SCK•CEN Barometer (Van Aeken et al. 2007); and iii) discussions with experts. The table below summarises the questions asked and the results obtained. Table 12 Items assessing knowledge about the nuclear domain Answering categories

What do you think about the following issues: AW 1 Is a dirty bomb the same as an atomic bomb? AW 2

Does exposure to radiation always lead to contamination with radioactive material?

AW 3

Is radioactive waste exclusively produced by nuclear power plants?

AW 4

Which percentage of electric power in Belgium do you believe is produced in nuclear plants?

1. 2. 9.

Yes No Don't know / no answer

1. Less than 25 % 2. Between 25-45 % 3. Between 45-65 % 4. More than 65 % 9. Don’t know / no answer

% correct answers & (Correct answer)

% incorrect answers

48% (No)

25%

31% (No)

59%

61% (No)

27%

34% ("Between 45-65%")

51% (from which 26% think it is "more than 65%")

42

Answering categories

% correct answers & (Correct answer)

% incorrect answers

Please indicate whether the following localities have a nuclear power plant (items randomized) AW 5 Doel 1. Yes 80% (Yes) 10% 2. No AW 6 Hasselt 82% (No) 5% AW 7

Tihange

AW 8

Namur

AW 9

Lier

9.

Don't know / no answer

Which of the following sectors makes use of nuclear technology? AW 10 production of electricity 1. Yes 2. No AW 11 medical sector 9. Don't know / no AW 12 food industry answer AW 13 textile industry

82% (Yes)

10%

82% (No)

5%

78% (No)

7%

97% (Yes)

1%

89% (Yes)

6%

29% (Yes)

59%

28% (Yes)

56%

74% (Yes)

15%

87% ("Separately from other waste")

5%

91% ("With special equipment")

3%

53% (Bq)

13%

What do you think about the following statement: is it true or false? AW 14

There exists a plan to ensure the protection of the population in case of a nuclear accident.

1. 2. 9.

True False Don't know/ no answer

Please answer the following questions: (items rotated) AW 15 Radioactive waste is collected and 1. Separately from treated other wastes 2. Together with the other waste 9. Don't know/no answer AW 16 Radioactivity can be directly 1. With special measured: equipment 2. It cannot be measured 9. Don't know/no answer AW 17 The measurement unit for 1. Becquerel radioactivity is: 2. Hertz 3. Metres/second 9. I don't know/ no answer

It is important to look not only at the correct answers, but also at the percentage of respondents that gave incorrect answers. For instance, almost 60% of the respondents think mistakenly, that exposure to radiation will always lead to radioactive contamination. Most respondents know the location of the nuclear power plants in Belgium. However, only one third knows the correct range of the nuclear energy in the total energy mix, and 26% overestimate its importance.

43

While the use of nuclear technologies for the production of electricity and in the medical sector is well known, the knowledge about its use for other purposes (e.g. in the food sector for sterilisation by irradiation) is rather limited. Almost all respondents know that radioactivity can be measured with special equipment, but only half of them know the correct measurement unit. The general questions regarding the emergency plan and the radioactive waste were also answered correctly by most respondents. For the items which were common in 2009 and 2011 (AW1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10-14), the percentage of correct answers in similar. A slight increase (generally 1-4%) in the number of correct answers could be noticed for all items except the use of nuclear in the medical sector (82% correct answers in 2011 vs. 86% in 2009). The highest increase in the percentage of correct answers could be noticed with respect to the correct location of NPP's in Belgium. More than 78% (between 78% and 82%) of the respondents answered correctly the related questions, whereas in 2009 this accounted for 54%-73%. 5.7. Experiences with the nuclear domain Less than 20% of the Belgian population have any (acknowledged) experiences with the nuclear domain. The personal experiences with the nuclear domain have been investigated with four questions, listed in the table below. Table 13 Items on experiences with the nuclear AW 18 AW 19

AW 20

AW 21

Have you ever: Visited a nuclear power plant or research facility? 1. Yes 2. No Lived in an area close (within a 20 km radius) to a nuclear installation (power plant, nuclear research institute …) Had a job that involved the use of radioactivity (nuclear power plant, industry or hospital using radioactive sources, natural radioactivity in ores and other materials …) Had a family member or close friend with a job that involved the use of radioactivity?

44

Experiences with nuclear Had a family member or close friend with a job that involved the use of… Had a job that involved the use of radioactivity Yes Lived within a 20 km radius to a nuclear installation

No

Visited a NPP or research facility? 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fig. 19 Experiences with the nuclear The results show, similarly to the 2009 edition (see Fig. 19) that the Belgian population has very few (acknowledged) experiences with the nuclear and they have it, it is mostly leaving close to a nuclear installation (26%). To be noted that 15% have visited a nuclear installation (12% in 2009), while 13% had a family member or close friend with a job involving the use of radioactivity and only 5% had themselves such a job (the same as in 2009).

45

6. Stakeholder participation in decision-making concerning nuclear research installations The aim of this section was to determine predictors for the (intended) level of involvement in decision making concerning a (new) installation for nuclear research. The questions were derived from the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) (attitudes, subjective norms and control beliefs), augmented with descriptive norms, moral norms, past behaviour and environmental constraints. The theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) is one of the main social-cognition models used to predict human behaviour. It suggests that the proximal determinant of a person’s behaviour is his or her decision about how to behave (or behavioural intention). The theory of planned behaviour suggests three predictors of intention: attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. Attitudes reflect the individual’s enduring evaluation—positive or negative—of engaging in a particular behaviour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Subjective norms refer to beliefs about whether a specific referent group would approve or disapprove of one engaging in the focal behaviour (Poliakoff & Webb 2007). Since there may exist multiple reference groups with conflicting opinions about the same behaviour, it important to distinguish, e.g. between family and friends (who may be more supportive) from other groups. Perceived behavioural control reflects beliefs about whether one has the necessary resources, abilities, or opportunities to perform the behaviour successfully. As Poliakoff and Webb point out (2007), people may have positive attitudes and subjective norms, but they may still refrain from performing a particular behaviour due to their belief that the focal action is out of their control. Furthermore, it has been suggested to augment the theory of planned behaviour with descriptive norms, i.e. what others actually do in a similar situation (Chassin et al. 1984), moral norms, i.e. the individual’s perception of the moral correctness or incorrectness of performing a behaviour (Beck and Ajzen, 1991), past behaviour (Ajzen, 2002) and environmental constraints (e.g. time and money). 6.1. Past and planned involvement First the respondents were asked if they participated in a public involvement activity in the past.

Table 14 Item on past participation in public involvement activities

46

Citizens can become involved – participate- to decisions concerning their environment in various ways, for instance a citizens panel, a meeting in the town hall, an internet forum. ST01

Have you participated in the past in any public involvement activity?

1. Yes 2. No

Only 9% of the respondents said that they have participated in the past in public involvement activities related to their environment. Next, the context was introduced and the respondents were asked about the extent to which they would participate in citizens' involvement activities regarding an installation for nuclear research. Table 15 Item on planned participation Suppose there are plans to build an installation for nuclear research in your municipality. ST02

If there is an initiative for citizens' involvement in decisions related to this installation, how much would you like to be involved?

ONE ANSWER POSSIBLE

1 =I don’t want to be involved 2=I want to receive information about the installation 3=I want to receive information and express my opinion 4=I want to participate in a dialogue towards a consensual decision 5= I want to be an active partner in decision-making

Results show (see Fig. 20) that almost one third of the respondents do not wish to be involved in any way. Most people who would like to be involved prefer to restrict (?) themselves to receiving the relevant information (18%) or receiving the information and also expressing their opinion (28%). From the 1020 respondents, 24% would like to be involved to a larger extent, either as an active partner in decision-making (12%) or as a participant in a dialogue towards a consensual decision (12%).

47

Fig. 20 Planned level of involvement in decision making concerning installations for nuclear research

6.2. Attitudes towards participation A number of three questions with a common root (Table 16) assessed the attitude towards participation as such, i.e. whether participation was regarded as a positive behaviour. Table 16 Items on the attitude towards participation in decisions concerning installations for nuclear research (ITEMS ROTATED) ST1. ST2.

On a scale from 1 to 7, do you believe that your 7 points scale: participation in decisions on this installation for 1=pointless …7=worthwhile nuclear research would be: 7 points scale: 1=useless … 7=useful

ST3.

7 points scale: 1=disappointing … 7=rewarding

Results are presented in the following figure. 48

Fig. 21 Three dimensions of the attitude towards participation, N=1020 The results show that the attitude towards participation is somewhat sceptical, with average scores near the middle point of the scale (4) for all three dimensions investigated (4.02 for ST1, 4.25 for ST2, and 3.80 for ST3). Most people take a neutral, a neutral-positive or an extreme negative stand. A factor analysis performed on these three items showed that a scale can be constructed, measuring the attitude towards participation in decision making concerning nuclear research installations. The analysis carried out with Principal Axis Factoring revealed one factor extracted based on the criterion that the factors' eigenvalues should be larger than 1 and the analysis of the scree plot. This factor accounts for 73% of the variance in the data. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sample adequacy (0.7) and Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ2=1085, df = 3, Sig.<0.0001) indicate that conducting a factor analysis on these data was appropriate. The table below shows the loading of the items on the factor extracted. The reliability of the scale constructed with these three items is α=0.82. Table 17 Factor matrix for items on attitude towards participation Factor 1 ST1: Participation would be 1=pointless …7=worthwhile

.898

ST2: Participation would be 1=useless … 7=useful

.730

ST3: Participation would be 1=disappointing … 7=rewarding

.709 49

6.3. Descriptive, subjective and moral norms, environmental constraints and perceived influence

Subsequently, additional potentially explanatory variables were assessed, among which:  descriptive norms (whether the respondents believed that people they know best would participate, ST6),  moral norms (reflecting the individual’s perception of the moral correctness or incorrectness of performing a behaviour, ST5),  subjective norms (reflecting the degree to which the activity is supported by the close environment of the respondent, such as family or colleagues, ST4), perceived influence (ST7), and  time and financial constraints, respectively (ST8, ST9).

Table 18 Items on public participation in decision making Please state how much you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning participation in decisions on a new installation for nuclear research in your municipality ST4. Most people who are important to me (family, friends) would support my participation. ST5. I have a duty as a citizen to participate in such activities. ST6. Of the people I know, nobody would participate in such activities. ST7. I feel confident that by participating I can influence the actual decision-making

1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree 9. Don't know/NA

ST8. I do not have enough spare time to participate in such activities. ST9. I would participate only if this activity would be remunerated.

The results for these items are presented in the figure below.

50

Fig. 22 Additional items regarding participation in decision-making on installations for nuclear research As it can be noticed from the figure above, more than 40% the respondents agree that participating in public involvement activities is a citizen's duty, while a rather large percentage (36%) disagree. Almost half of the respondents feel that their close environment would support such activities: 44% agree vs. 32% disagree. Scepticism is expressed by more than half of the respondents who do not feel confident that they can influence decision making through their participation. Expected financial benefits seem irrelevant: almost 70% of the respondents disagree with the claim that remuneration is a necessary condition for participation.

51

6.4. Explanatory models

Moral norms and the attitude towards participation are the driving factors for a high level of involvement in decision-making processes on new nuclear research installations. Time constraints are an important impediment, but financial constraints are inconsequential. A preliminary test with ordinal logistic regression was carried out using ST02 as a dependent variable with five levels (as defined in section 6.2). The SPSS Ordinal Regression procedure, or PLUM (Polytomous Universal Model), is an extension of the general linear model to ordinal categorical data. This method assumes that the relationships between the independent variables and the logits are the same for all the logits corresponding to the different categories of the dependent variable 2. The independent variables were ST1; ST4-ST9; the factor formed with ST1, ST2 and ST3 and labelled attitude towards participation; the attitude towards nuclear energy (constructed with RT1, RT3 and MN7); the socio-demographic variables gender; and age (year of birth). The test of parallel lines however was not satisfied (i.e. the significance of the test that the model with different coefficients for each category is better was p<0.05). Therefore an ordinal regression cannot be directly applied using ST02 (planned level of involevement) as dependent variable This may be resolved in some cases by merging some categories. Consequently, we recoded the dependent variable and constructed two explanatory models. First we tested a model in which the dependent variable ST02BIN was obtained by recoding ST02 as follows: ST02BIN =

0, if the respondent is not willing to be involved at all, i.e. ST02=1 and 1, if the respondent is willing to be involved to a certain degree, i.e. 1<ST02≤5. Else: recode as system missing.

Binary logistic regression was performed to study the influence of a number of independent variables, among which attitude towards nuclear, past experience, attitude towards participation and personal norms. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test and the model and the Omnibus test of model coefficients indicate that the model adequately fits the data and that it gives a significant improvement over the base-line intercept-only model (the model with no predictors).

2

The log odds scale is given by logit(p)=log(p/(1-p)), where p/(1-p)= odds of an event with probability p

52

The results of the binary logistic regression using ST02BIN as depedent variable are presented in Table 19. When the significance values (last column) are below 0.05, the respective independent variables have a significant contribution to the model. Table 19 Binary logistic regression for planned participation behaviour (N=840) Independent variable Attitude towards nuclear: FAC_RT1_RT3_MN7 Past experience ( Yes)

B

S.E.

Sig.

.131

.138

.344

-.311

.410

.448

***Subjective norms: ST4: Most people who are important to me (family, friends) would support my participation.

.361

.098

.000

***Moral norms: ST5 I have a duty as a citizen to participate in such activities.

.733

.106

.000

Descriptive norms: ST6: Of the people I know, nobody would participate in such activities.

-.174

.095

.066

Perceived influence: ST7: I feel confident that by participating I can influence the actual decision-making

-.098

.118

.407

**Time constraints: ST8: I do not have enough spare time to participate in such activities.

-.233

.084

.006

Financial constraints: ST9: I would participate only if this activity would be remunerated.

-.065

.094

.493

***Attitude towards participation: FAC_ST1_ST2_ST3

1.038

.151

.000

-.005

.088

.954

.049

.095

.609

Gender (Male)

.062

.207

.763

Year of birth

.011

.006

.076

-22.92

12.65

.070

RP9i: Risk perception of an accident in a nuclear installation RC9i: Confidence in authorities for managing risks from accidents in nuclear installations

Constant

Percentage of correct classifications: 83.5% (60% in category ST02BIN=0 and 91% in category ST02BIN=1). Correct classifications in the null model: 74%. Note: Nagelkerke R Square = 0.51

Results show that moral norms are the strongest predictor for the intention to take part in public involvement activities. The more one believes that participation is a citizen's duty the more likely he/she is to be taking part in public involvement activities. Other influential predictors are the attitude towards participation, the subjective norms and then time constraints. The more positive one's attitude towards participation and the more support one feels from its close environment, the more likely he/she is to be involved. At the same time, the analysis reveals that while time constraints play an important role, financial benefits from participation do not seem to influence people's intention to 53

participate in decision processes related to new nuclear installations. Neither do risk perception of an accident in a nuclear installation, or the confidence in authorities as regards the actions undertaken, play any role. Surprisingly, the variable describing the perceived influence of public participation on the actual decision did not come out as a significant predictor for participation in this model. The age (year of birth) and the descriptive norms are just below the 95% significance level. The dependent variable in the first model does not allow differentiating between the degrees of planned involvement. To gain a better insight into this issue, we tested a second model. For this reason we recoded ST02 as follows: ST02INV4CAT= 1, " I want to be an active partner OR participate in a dialogue towards a consensual decision" (ST02 = 4 or ST02=5) 2, " I want to receive information and express my opinion" (ST02=3) 3, " I want to receive information about the installation" (ST02=2) 4, " I don’t want to be involved" (ST02=1) Else, recode as system missing. The reason for inverting the order of the categories was to set the category "I don’t want to be involved" as the reference category in the ordinal regression. A higher category of ST02INV4CAT thus indicates a lesser degree of planned involvement. Table 20 Ordinal logistic regression for planned participation behaviour (N=840) Dependent variable: ST02INVCAT Location

Estimate

Std. Error

Sig.

***Attitude towards nuclear: FACRT1INV_RT3_MN7

-.314

.090

.000

***Attitude towards participation FAC_ST1_ST2_ST3

-.857

.101

.000

*** Subjective norms: ST4

-.306

.067

.000

***Moral norms: ST5

-.559

.071

.000

***Descriptive norms: ST6

.248

.069

.000

Perceived influence: ST7

-.086

.074

.244

***Time constraints: ST8

.274

.058

.000

-.032

.061

.599

Risk perception accident in nuclear installation: RP9

.006

.059

.913

Confidence in authorities regarding accidents in nuclear

.034

.065

.607

Year of birth

-.007

.004

.113

Past participation [ST01=Yes]

-.317

.249

.202

Gender (Male)

-.229

.139

.098

Financial constraints: ST9

installations: RC9

Link function: Logit.

Nagelkerke R square = 0.53

54

Dependent variable: ST02INVCAT Location

Estimate

Std. Error

Sig.

***Attitude towards nuclear: FACRT1INV_RT3_MN7

-.314

.090

.000

***Attitude towards participation FAC_ST1_ST2_ST3

-.857

.101

.000

*** Subjective norms: ST4

-.306

.067

.000

***Moral norms: ST5

-.559

.071

.000

***Descriptive norms: ST6

.248

.069

.000

Perceived influence: ST7

-.086

.074

.244

***Time constraints: ST8

.274

.058

.000

-.032

.061

.599

Risk perception accident in nuclear installation: RP9

.006

.059

.913

Confidence in authorities regarding accidents in nuclear

.034

.065

.607

Year of birth

-.007

.004

.113

Past participation [ST01=Yes]

-.317

.249

.202

Gender (Male)

-.229

.139

.098

Financial constraints: ST9

installations: RC9

Link function: Logit.

Nagelkerke R square = 0.53

Refernce category: ST02INV4CAT=4 'I don't want to be involved'

The ordinal logistic regression having ST02INV4CAT as dependent variable satisfied the test of parallel lines (p=0.189) and yielded a significant model fit (p<0.001). Table 20 summarises the coefficients of the regression model and their statistical significance. Similarly to the previous model, the most influential predictors are the attitude towards participation and the moral norms. In this second model however, alongside with subjective norms and time constraints, the descriptive norms and the attitude towards nuclear are also highly significant predictors. The higher the belief that most people one knows would participate in decision-making processes, the more likely it is that one would commit to a greater level of involvement. At the same time, a more positive attitude towards nuclear would more likely lead to a lesser degree of involvement as compared to the reference category "I don't want to be involved". Once again, financial constraints are inconsequential as regards the planned degree of involvement. 6.5. Confidence in the actors organising public involvement The most trusted actors for organising a public involvement process are independent organisations or a local action groups. Finally, we investigated the willingness to participate depending on the actor organising the process: the controlling authority, the company managing the project, a non55

governmental organisation, an independent institution (e.g. a university) or a local action group (see Table below). Table 21 Items on the actors organising public involvement activities Such public involvement activities can be organised by different actors. On a scale from 1 to 7, how much would you be willing to participate in a public involvement activity in decisions with regard to nuclear installations if this were organised by: ST12.

The controlling authority

ST13.

The company managing the project

ST14.

A non-governmental organisation

ST15.

An independent institution, e.g. a university

ST16.

A local action group

7 point scale: 1= not at all… 7=very much

Results show (see also Fig. 23) that the preferred actors are most of the time an independent organisation (average score 4.3 ) or a local action group (average score 4.1) and the least preferred is the company managing the project (average score 3.7), with the controlling authority somewhere in the middle (average score 3.9). This confirms the results concerning the trustworthiness and competence of actors in the nuclear field.

56

Fig. 23 Willingness to participate depending on the organising actor

57

7. Management of radioactive waste The general aim of this section was to investigate peoples’ opinion about intermediate and high radioactive waste (HLW) management (RWM) and participation with regard to this topic. The questions were divided into 3 focal areas, namely public participation, geological disposal, and long term responsibilities.

7.1. Public participation with regard to radioactive waste

When asked for reasons not to participate in consultations about radioactive waste management (RWM), only few people state it is not of concern to them, but this this does not mean they are interested in the topic. Next to lack of interest, the idea that it will have little influence on the final decision is an equally important reason for respondents not to participate in consultations about the management of radioactive waste. The questionnaire reveals a divergence between peoples’ intentions and their actual behaviour with regard to public participation on RWM. In the summer of 2010 a public consultation was organised by NIRAS/ONDRAF on the draft "Waste Plan" and the "Strategic Environmental Assessment". We looked for reasons for non-participation with regard to both this consultation and potential future consultations about the way HLW should be dealt with. The corresponding items in the questionnaire are described in Table 22.

58

Table 22 Items related to the Waste Plan Radioactive waste is classified in different categories. Somewhat simplified, a distinction is made between two main categories. The high-level waste radiates intensely and will remain radioactive for a very long time (thousands of years); the low-level waste radiates less intensely and becomes harmless after ca. 300 years. The following questions concern the high-level radioactive waste. In the summer of 2010 a public consultation was organised to ask people’s opinion about the way high level radioactive waste should be dealt with. Information was given under the form of 2 documents, the "Waste Plan" and the "Strategic Environmental Assessment". RW 1 Were you aware about this public 1. Yes consultation? 2. No FILTER for the following two questions RW 2 If RW1= YES Did you send comments to give 1. Yes your opinion? 2. No RW 3 If RW1 = YES and RW2 = NO 1. I didn't have time Why didn’t you send your comments? 2. I wasn’t interested Choose one answer 3. The topic is too difficult 4. It doesn’t concern me 5. It has little influence on the final decision 6. I didn't have any comments 7. Other reasons RW 4 If a similar consultation is organized in the 1. Yes future would you participate? 2. No RW 5 If RW4=NO, why not? 1. I have no time 2. I have no interest 3. The topic is too difficult 4. It doesn’t concern me 5. It has little influence on the final decision 6. Other reasons

59

Only 10.59% of the respondents were aware of the waste plan consultation, 89.41% were not. From the 108 respondents who were aware of it, 8 answered that they sent their comments, while the other 100 answered that they did not, due to various reasons.3 Among these reasons, the idea that participation would have little influence on the final decision was mentioned most (21%). This confirms our earlier finding that respondents seem to be rather sceptical about participation (section 6.2) as well as the findings related to question ST7, where more than half of the respondents expressed not to feel confident that they can influence decicion making through participation (section 6.3, Fig. 22). This suggests that the way public opinion will be taken up in actual decision making needs to be structurally defined and communicated prior to conducting a consultation about RWM. Only 7% responded that they did not participate because they think the issue does not concern them, which is an interesting finding in light of the fact that of lot of effort in socio-political research around RWM is focussed on the siting issue.

Fig. 24 Reasons for not sending comments to the Waste Plan

3

These numbers do not match with the factual information about the consultation: out of 8.549.700 people (Belgian 18+ adult population), NIRAS/ONDRAF received some 2700 answers, which means a response rate of 0.031 % . Within our survey 8 persons out of the 1020 stated that they sent their comments, which means a response rate of 0.78 %. Some divergence is to be expected, but a difference of over 20 times seems to suggest that some respondents that stated they sent their comments in reality did not. For methodological reasons, it could be interesting to further investigate this bias. 60

If a similar public consultation would be organised in the future, 46.57% of the respondents would like to send their comments, while 53.43% would not. The difference between 7.4% (8 out of the 108 aware respondents) that stated they participated to an actual consultation and 46.57% that state they would participate to a hypothetical consultation is remarkable. It suggests a divergence between peoples’ intentions and their actual behaviour with regard to public participation on RWM. For respondents that were aware of the consultation in 2010, lack of interest was not a major determinant for not sending comments (8%). However, for the respondents that would not participate to a future consultation, lack of interest is stated rather often as a reason (26%). Once again, the majority of the respondents does not express the opinion that the topic is not of concern to them (6%). Next to lack of interest the other main reason not to participate is once again the concern that it would not have an influence on the final decision (also 26%).

Fig. 25 Reasons for non-participating in a future public consultation

61

7.2. Opinions about geological disposal of high level radioactive waste

There appears to be limited support for geological disposal. If it would be chosen as the management option for HLW, this would not cause people to change their opinion about nuclear energy. 45% of the respondents would never agree to having a geological disposal close to their home, yet a similar percentage would be interested in participation in such a case. In a following section, after a short explanatory introduction, respondents were asked to express their opinion about geological disposal of HLW. Table 23 Items regarding opinion about geological disposal of HLW Currently deep geological disposal is proposed for the long-term management of high-level radioactive waste. The option entails that waste will be packed and permanently buried a couple of hundred metres under the surface in a dedicated construction in a clay layer. When the disposal is filled up, for safety and security reasons it will be sealed to prevent access. Please state how much you agree or disagree with the following statements concerning the geological disposal of high level radioactive waste: RW 6 Geological disposal solves the issue of high level 1. Strongly disagree radioactive waste. 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree RW 7 Geological disposal is not an acceptable management option for high level radioactive waste. 4. Agree 5. Strongly agree RW 8 Future generations should be able to access the 9. Don’t know / no answer geological disposal, even if this maybe jeopardizes safety and security. RW 9 If geological disposal is chosen for managing high1. totally in favour level radioactive waste, what is your opinion about 2. rather in favour further development of nuclear energy? 3. neither in favour nor against 4. rather against 5. totally against 9. Don’t know/no answer

Respondents agree slightly more with the description of geological disposal as an “acceptable management option” as compared to a “solution” for HLW. Overall, support for geological disposal can be interpreted as limited, since 52% does not agree with the statement that geological disposal solves the issue of HLW and 41% does not find it an acceptable management option. The question probing the issue of reversibility and retrievability (RW8) was stated in a rather outspoken way, but still 38% expressed to be in favour of future generations having access to the disposal.

62

Fig. 26 Opinions on the geological disposal for high-level waste Next we asked again about respondents’ opinion about nuclear energy, this time considering the situation in which geological disposal would be the option applied to manage HLW.

Fig. 27 Opinion about nuclear energy, if geological disposal chosen for HLW The result is very similar to that obtained when the opinion on nuclear energy was asked earlier in the questionnaire with no reference to waste disposal, most respondents keeping their initial opinion (see also Fig. 28). 63

Fig. 28 Opinion about nuclear energy with and without reference to waste disposal This seems to suggest that overall the choice for a geological repository does not cause major changes in public opinion about nuclear energy in the actual context. It is also possible that since radioactive waste is considered as a major argument against nuclear energy, and disposal does not influence the production of radioactive waste as such, the choice for one disposal option or another does not bring significant opinion changes. With a following question, we asked how people would feel about the construction of an underground HLW disposal near their home. We were interested in the answers as such, but also in the potential divergence between general and personal statements with regard to geological disposal as such and with regard to participation in RWM. Table 24 Item related to construction of a HLW disposal near one's home Please answer the following question: RW 10

If plans existed to construct an underground disposal site for high-level radioactive waste near your home, with which of the following statements do you agree the most?

1=I don't want to be involved 2=I want to receive information about the disposal 3=I want to receive information and express my opinion 5= I want to be a partner in decision-making 6 = I would never agree to have a disposal site near my home and I would protest against it.

64

A similar percentage of respondents that do not think of geological disposal as a solution or an acceptable management option, would never accept a geological disposal close to one’s home (45%). The percentage of expressions of interest in participation is similar to that of interest to participate in a future consultation like the one on the waste plan (41%, including “wanting to receive information”).

Fig. 29 Opinion about construction of HLW near respondent's home Having 45% of the population refusing a geological disposal close to their home can be said to be a high percentage. Nevertheless, there is a similar percentage with interest in participation. Together with the previously pointed limited number of respondents stating RWM not to be of their concern, we might carefully suggest that the description of RWM as an exemplary case of blunt NIMBY may require revaluation.

65

7.3. Responsibilities in light of the long term character of radioactive waste management

Even though the amount of respondents that consider geological disposal to be a solution for HLW is very limited, there is equally limited support for the statement that the long term management of radioactive waste should be left to future generations if no solution exists today. The responsibility for dealing with radioactive waste is expressed to lie with the generations that receive the benefits of the nuclear power. Nevertheless, future generations should have access to it and apply their own management techniques. Three items aimed to investigate people’s opinion about the involvement of future generations in the long term management of radioactive waste. Table 25 Items concerning the involvement of future generations in RWM And now I would like to ask you some final, more general questions on the management of high level nuclear waste: RW 11 The generation using nuclear power should be 1. Strongly disagree responsible for dealing with its waste, not the future 2. Disagree generations. 3. Neither agree, nor disagree RW 12 Since radioactive waste will remain hazardous for many generations, future generations should be 4. Agree able to make decisions about it. 5. Strongly agree RW 13 Since no good solution exists for radioactive waste 9. Don’t know / no answer yet, its long term management should be left to future generations.

The results confirm the previously discussed item that asked whether future generations should have access to a geological disposal, and also confirm the results of the public consultations organised by NIRAS/ONDRAF (the legal procedure the first item referred to, as well as other initiatives of citizens involvement organised on its own initiative, see http://www.niras-afvalplan.be/nieuw/htm/getpage.php?i=1). The public thinks the responsibility for dealing with radioactive waste lies with the generations that receive the benefits of the nuclear power (67%), but this does not mean that future generations should not be enabled to form their own opinion and apply their own management techniques (71%).

66

Fig. 30 Opinion about the involvement of future generations in long term management of HLW4 Although the majority of respondents does not agree with the statement that long term radioactive waste management should be left to future generations if no solution exists today (48%), the diversity of opinions with regard to this item reveal complexity, especially when keeping in mind that 52% of the respondents does not agree that geological disposal solves the issue of HLW.

4

For RW12 only the results for the French speaking part of the population are displayed, due to a mistake in the Dutch translation. 67

8. The iodine campaign The campaign related to preventive distribution of iodine tablets was highly acknowledged and well accepted by the Belgian population. However, to ensure the correct use of iodine tablets in case of a nuclear/radiological accident, the communication has to continue by using stakeholder engagements methods. Administration of stable iodine is one of the possible measures of protecting the population in the case of an accidental radioactive release . This action is essential for the saturation and subsequent protection of the thyroid gland against the potential harm caused by radio-iodines. Pre-distribution of stable iodine tablets as preparation in case of an accident is undertaken to people living in the vicinity of nuclear installations in 14 European countries. The area for pre-distribution varies from a 5 km radius around the nuclear installations in Switzerland to 50 km in Lithuania. In most cases, stable iodine is delivered to the entire population in the selected area, regardless of age (Jourdain et al, 2010). The campaign for preventive distribution of iodine tablets has been organised in Belgium in 1999, 2002 and 2011 (a few weeks before the collection of the survey data). The main objectives of the communication campaigns were to increase knowledge (educate) the public on nuclear emergency preparedness and to invite the target population to collect the iodine tablets. In 1999, a large-scale campaign on nuclear emergency preparedness took place in Belgium (Van Bladel, Pauwels, & Smeesters, 2000). At the same time, the inhabitants of Belgian municipalities located within 10 km from major Belgian or near-border nuclear installations (with the exception of the IRE site in Fleurus for which the radius was limited to 5 km) were invited to collect free stable iodine tablets from their local pharmacy. A follow-up campaign took place in 2002, when the area of preventive stable iodine distribution was extended to 20 km (10 km for IRE, Fleurus) from Belgian or nearborder nuclear installations. The tablets delivered in 1999 expired in 2008, but new tablets were not ordered until June 2010. After the expiration of the stable iodine tablets, the topic appeared constantly in the media and in the agenda of local communities. The Federal Crisis Centre continued to release the information that even if the tablets are expired they are still good to use (Belgian Federal Crisis Centre, 2010). In 2011, the Belgian authorities organised a new campaign to further improve the civilians’ ability to cope with a nuclear incident affecting the Belgian territory, by sharpening the risk awareness and by making iodine tablets available for people who live or work in a nuclear emergency planning zone. The campaign was carried out from March 14 to April 16, 2011, two months before our public opinion research was conducted.

68

This section of the survey had two aims. The first was to assess the reception and the acceptance of the information from the iodine pre-distribution campaign in 2011 and to make a longitudinal study of these variables. For this reason, we repeated some questions used in a study from 2009. At that time, 201 respondents (out of 1031), expressed willingness to participate in a future edition of the survey. In this document we report the results for the general population, while the longitudinal study will be reported in a separate document. The second aim was to assess whether the processing of information related to the campaign was of a more heuristic nature, i.e. instinctive or emotion driven, or more of a systematic nature, i.e. based on rationality, e.g. taking more effort to process and check the information.

8.1. Reception of information

The following table summarised the questions assessing the reception of the campaign.

Table 26 Items on the reception of the iodine campaign Earlier this year the authorities organised an information campaign related to iodine tablets. RI 1 Do you know about the distribution of 1. Yes iodine tablets? 2. No 9. Don't know / no answer [If No, skip R2 to R5 and AW22-AW26] RI 2 Do you know who was invited to 1. Everyone in Belgium. collect the iodine tablets? 2. The people living within a certain radius from a nuclear installation 3. The people working with chemical substances 4. The people working with radioactivity. 9. Don’t know/no answer RI 3 In case of a nuclear alarm, should the 1. Wait for instructions, people take tablets immediately or 2. Take immediately in the case of nuclear should they wait for instructions? alarm 9. Don’t know/no answer

RI 4

Where can you get these iodine tablets?

1. At the local pharmacy 2. At the special centres near the nuclear 69

installations 3. At family doctor 4. At the municipality

RI 5

Are these iodine tablets for free or to be paid?

9. Don’t know/no answer 1. For free 2. To be paid 9. Don’t know/no answer

In your opinion, in case of a nuclear accident, an iodine tablet would protect against: AW 22 Lung cancer 1. Yes 2. No AW 23 Leukaemia AW 24 AW 25 AW 26

Thyroid cancer Bone cancer Skin burns

9. Don't know / no answer

The results are discussed below. 68% of the respondents were aware of the information campaign organised by the authorities, whereas 32% were not aware. From the 690 respondents who were aware of the campaign, 87% knew that the people living within a certain radius from nuclear installations were invited to get the iodine tables. When being asked about the right time for iodine intake in case of a nuclear alarm, 67% of the 690 respondents knew that one should wait for instructions, whereas 29% believed that iodine tablets should be taken immediately. As regards the place where one can get the tablets, 91% of the 690 respondents who were aware of the campaign knew that the tablets are to be found in the local pharmacies and 90% knew that they are given for free. Regarding the protection offered by iodine tablets, most people knew that they provide protection against the thyroid cancer, but quite some people (even up to almost 30%, see figure below) believed that the tablets can provide protection also against other types of cancer, such as leukaemia.

70

Fig. 31 Knowledge about the use of iodine tablets (N=690)

8.2. Acceptance of information from the iodine campaign The questions assessing the acceptance of the information from the iodine campaign were as follows. Table 27 Items on the acceptance of the iodine campaign [If RI1=2 of 9]: The authorities organised a distribution of iodine tablets in the framework of the nuclear emergency plan for people living within a certain radius from nuclear installations. [ALL]: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements? AI 1 The distribution of iodine tablets is a good idea 1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree AI 2 The authorities assure that the iodine tablets can 3. Neither agree, nor reduce health consequences in case of a nuclear disagree accident. Do you agree? 4. Agree AI 3 Do you agree with the distribution of iodine tablets for people living with a certain radius from a nuclear 5. Strongly Agree installation? AI 4 AI 5

Have you ever been invited to collect the iodine tablets? [If Yes on AI 4] Did you collect your iodine tablets?

9. Don't know / no answer 1. Yes 2. No

71

AI 6

AI 7

AI 8

If you are invited to collect iodine tablets in the future, would you collect the tablets and store them at home? Would you like to have iodine tablets at your home even if you do not live in the distribution area? In case of a nuclear alarm what would you 1. do with the tablets? 2.

3. 4.

AI 9

5. Do you have these iodine tablets at home?

1. I would wait for instructions, 2. I would take them immediately in case of a nuclear alarm 3. I would not take them at all 4. I would decide at the very moment 9. Don’t know/no answer 1. Yes 2. No

9. Don’t know/no answer In case of a nuclear accident, would you accept the measures taken by the authorities, if these were: AI 10 To take iodine tablets if the authorities recommend 1. Yes, because they are helpful this 2. Yes, because I have to AI 11 To give stable iodine tablets to your children if the 3. No authorities recommend this 9. Don't know/no answer Now I would like to ask you few questions about your opinion as regards the iodine tablets. Do you think that: AI 12 Iodine tablets give people a false sense of security 1. Strongly Disagree AI 13 Iodine tablets are a waste of money 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree 9. Don't know / no answer

The results are presented and discussed in the following.

72

Fig. 32 Opinion about the distribution of iodine tablets, N=1020 The large majority of people believe that distribution of iodine tablets is a good initiative (74%) and 63% are convinced that these tablets can reduce health effects in case of a nuclear accident. If we take a closer look at the differences in the responses to these questions between the people who were aware vs. not aware of the campaign (Fig. 33), we can notice that people aware of the campaign accepted to a larger extent these messages of the campaign.

73

Fig. 33 Acceptance of messages from the campaign for people aware vs. not aware of the campaign

74

The question about having received an invitation to collect iodine tablets revealed that 19% of the respondents (193 out of 1020) had received an invitation. Out of these 193 respondents, 137 (71%) had already collected the iodine tablets at the time of the interview, but 143 replied that they have this at home. Possible explanations for this difference could be that the respondents didn't collect the tablets personally, or they had these tablets at home from previous distributions.

Fig. 34 Opinion about future distributions of iodine tablets As regards future distributions of iodine tablets, 79% of the respondents replied that they would go to collect the iodine tablets if they would get an invitation in the future. To be noted that half of the respondents (53%) would feel assured if they had these tablets, even the case when they do not leave or work in the current distribution area.

75

Fig. 35 Acceptance of iodine tablets intake Even if 67% of those remembering the campaign knew that one should wait for instructions before taking the tablets, only 60% would actually do that in case of a nuclear alarm. 20% would take the tablets immediately, while 10% would decide at the very moment. If we compare the answers of those aware of the campaign with the answers of the respondents who were not aware, we see that people who are not aware of the campaign are clearly more inclined to decide at the very moment (possibly depending on the information available) or to not take the tablets at all.

76

In general, a large majority of almost 90% of the people would comply with taking the iodine tablets or giving them to their children (see Fig. 36), either because they are convinced about their usefulness, or because the authorities recommend (enforce) this. Only very few respondents would not take the tablets at all even when advised to do so by the authorities.

Fig. 36 Acceptance of intake of iodine tablets if recommended by the authorities The survey section on acceptance was concluded by two general questions about the iodine tablets. Results show (see Fig. 37) that people are quite positive as regards the distribution of iodine tablets (they oppose the claim that they are a waste of money), but this does not necessarily make them less concerned as regards a nuclear accident. About 39% think that the iodine tablets might give people a false sense of security.

77

Fig. 37 General opinion about iodine tablets 8.3. Heuristic vs systematic information processing of the information from the iodine campaign From the results we can conclude that an information campaign related to protective actions for the nuclear accidents will be successful if it stimulates systematic information processing, for instance by involvement of the people, by including experts in the communication, and by stimulating critical thinking (e.g. presenting both the positive and negative sides of iodine tablets). People process information in two central information processing modes: heuristic and systematic. Heuristic processing is most strongly characterized by low effort and reliance on existing knowledge. Systematic processing is most strongly characterized by greater effort and the desire to evaluate information formally (e.g. scientifically) (Trumbo, 1999). These concepts have not been studied in relation to stable iodine tablets yet, while there is a lack of empirical studies in general. In this section we investigated (see Table 28) if the information processing in case of the iodine campaign was heuristic (instinctive or emotion driven) or systematic (based on rationality), e.g. taking more effort to process and check the information and to make a decision. The research questions were the following: • Is processing of information related to stable iodine tablets heuristic (instinctive or emotion driven) or systematic (based on rationality, e.g. taking more effort to process and check the information and to make a decision)? • Which are predictors of information processing related to stable iodine tablets? • Analysis of other relations with nuclear energy or radiation risks. 78

The questions measuring information processing mode were adapted from existing literature related to systematic and heuristic measurements (Dunwoody, Griffin, & Neuwirth, 2006) (Jooyoung & Hye-Jin, 2009; Trumbo, 1999, 2002). These statements target the individual's effort to acquire and compare information. Table 28 Items on heuristic and systematic information processing ITEMS RANDOMIZED & FILTERED WITH RI1=1 or 2 (only for those who know about the campaign) [If RI1=1] Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statements. SI 1 In order to be completely informed about the use of iodine 1. Strongly tablets, I think that the more viewpoints I get, the better off Disagree I will be. 2. Disagree SI 2 I have been very attentive to the information presented in 3. Neither agree, the information campaign on iodine tablets. nor disagree SI 3 When the topic of iodine tablets came up, I tried to learn 4. Agree more about it. 5. Strongly Agree SI 4 It was important for me to clarify how I should use the SI 5 HI 1 HI 2

HI 3 HI 4 HI 5

iodine tablets When I encountered information about iodine tablets, I carefully considered it.

9. Don't know / no answer

On issues like that I just go with my gut feeling. Past experiences with health related issues have made it easier for me to make an opinion about the use of iodine tablets. On the use of iodine tablets I shall simply place my trust in the experts and respect their recommendations. Related to decisions concerning the iodine tablets, I follow the people from my environment, e.g. family, neighbours. I could easily make an opinion about the use of iodine tablets without seeking additional information, based on my existing knowledge.

The first results are presented in the figure below.

79

Fig. 38 Sistematic and heuristic processing of information relatde to iodine tablets To identify the strength of the predictors for information processing, the following latent constructs and items were used: Systematic mode, Heuristic mode, Perception of radiation risks, Confidence in authorities to protect population for radiation risks, Specific knowledge, Knowledge related to use of iodine tablets, Acceptance of iodine campaign and Acceptance of communicated message (see Table below).

80

Table 29 Latent constructs used to study predictors for information processing Latent variable

Items

Systematic mode (n=667)

In order to be completely informed about the use of iodine tablets, I think that the more viewpoints I get, the better off I will be. (SI1i) I have been very attentive to the information presented in the information campaign on iodine tablets. (SI2i) When the topic of iodine tablets came up, I tried to learn more about it. (SI3i) It was important for me to clarify how I should use the iodine tablets. (SI4i) When I encountered information about iodine tablets, I carefully considered it. (SI5i)

Cronbach's α

0.48 0.74 0.79

Trust in the experts

Perception of radiation risks (Principal axis factoring) Confidence in authorities to protect population for Specific knowledge Knowledge:Use of iodine tablets

Acceptance of iodine campaign

Acceptance of communicated

Related to decisions concerning the iodine tablets, I follow the people from my environment, e.g. family, neighbours. H4i I could easily make an opinion about the use of iodine tablets without seeking additional information, based on my existing knowledge. H5i

0.69 0.60 0.76

Past experiences with health related issues have made it easier for me to make an opinion about the use of iodine tablets. H2i Heuristic mode PCA

Factor loading

0.76

0.55

0.66

0.76

On the use of iodine tablets I shall simply place my trust in the experts and respect their recommendations. H3i Radioactive waste. RP6 An accident in a nuclear installation. RP9 A terrorist attack with a radioactive source. RP14

Radioactive waste. RC6 An accident in a nuclear installation. RC9 A terrorist attack with a radioactive source. RC14 Index AW1 to AW17

0.73 0.87 0.82 0.75

0.86

0.87 0.86 0.74

Index AW22 to AW26 The authorities assure that the iodine tablets can reduce health consequences in case of a nuclear accident. Do you agree? AI2 Do you agree with the distribution of iodine tablets for people living with a certain radius from a nuclear installation? AI3 The distribution of iodine tablets is a good idea. AI1 Iodine tablets are waste of money (inverted) AI13 Iodine tablets would protect against thyroid cancer AW24

0.64 0.75

0.60 0.84 0.55

81

Latent variable

Cronbach's α

Items

Factor loading

message

Results show that a higher degree of systematic information processing generally led to more acceptance of communicated messages. If we compare for instance the respondents agreeing that "iodine tablets would protect against thyroid cancer" (AW24) with those who didn't agree, we notice (see table below) that the latter processed the information significantly less systematic than the former, and slightly more heuristic. Table 30 Group statistics for sistematic and heuristic processing (factor scores). Grouping variable: AW24 Iodine tablets would protect against thyroid cancer AW24 Systematic processing Not agreeing mode Agreeing Heuristic processing mode Not agreeing Agreeing

N 81 586 77 584

Mean -.31 .04 .09 -.01

Std. Deviation 1.03 .87 1.13 .98

Std. Error Mean .11 .04 .13 .04

As a statistical test comparing the distributions across the two groups (agreeing and not agreeing with the communicated message AW24) we used the independent-samples nonparametric tests Mann-Whitney U. The results show that the systematic information processing was significantly different in the two groups (assymptotic significance value p=0.001). For the heuristic information processing mode, the differences between the group categories did not appear as statistically significant. To identify the strength of information processing predictors for accepting the communicated message related to iodine tablets a binary logistic regression analysis with following hypothetical predictors was used: specific knowledge, systematic and heuristic information processing mode, confidence in authorities, radiation risk perception and trust in the experts.

82

Table 31 Binary logistic regression for AW24 Iodine tablets would protect against thyroid cancer B S.E. Sig. a Step 1 ***Specific knowledge .243 .050 .000 *Systematic mode .413 .202 .041 Heuristic mode -.337 .175 .054 *Confidence in .365 .152 .016 authorities Radiation risk perception -.236 .157 .132 **Trust in the experts .389 .138 .005 Constant -1.939 .773 .012 2 R = 0.21 Respondents included in the model: N = 621 out of 690 knowing about the communication campaign related to iodine tablets.

A higher acceptance of communicated information related to iodine tablets is mostly driven by systematic information processing (B=0.41*), followed by higher trust in the experts (B=0.39**), higher confidence in authorities (B=0.37*) and higher specific knowledge (B=0.24***). Respondents that processed the information related to iodine tablets more heuristically seemed less inclined to with the protection use of the iodine tablets; however, the significance level of the heuristic mode was on the limit (p=0.5). To analize the general acceptance of the information distributed in the iodine campaign, a linear regression was carried out, using as a dependent variable a latent construct measured with four communicated messages (see Table xx). Table 32 Acceptance of information from the iodine campaign

Acceptance of iodine campaign (Constant) Heuristic mode Systematic mode Confidence in authorities Radiation risk perception Trust in the experts Specific knowledge Knowledge; use of iodine tablets R2 = 0.15 , N=600

Unstandardized Standardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta -1.127 .220 -.016 .037 -.019 .103 .043 .108 .065 .037 .070 -.026 .037 -.028 .302 .036 .335 .015 .014 .044 -.025 .020 -.049

Sig. .000 .661 .016 .077 .469 .000 .273 .218

Results show that trust in the expert is the strongest predictor for the acceptance of iodine campaign. The higher trust in the experts one has, the more he/she accepted the communicated messages. Another influential predictor is the systematic information 83

processing mode. The persons who made a decision related to iodine tablets based on rationality, e.g. taking more effort to process and check the information and to make a decision, accepted the messages from the iodine campaign to a greater extent. Although the key objectives of this research are scientific (both theoretical and empirical), the findings are useful for designing succesful risk communication strategies in nuclear/radiological emergency management. From the results we can conclude that an information campaign related to protective actions will be successful, if it stimulates systematic information processing, for instance by stimulating stakeholder engagement, including experts in the communication and stimulating critical thinking (e.g. presenting positive and negative sides of iodine tablets).

84

9. Attitude towards science and technology In general public attitude towards science and technology is positive although 4 people out of 10 do not have any interest in it. Mostly because they don’t care about science and technology or they don’t understand it. The section on the attitude towards science and technology (S&T) consisted of one general question on the interest or disinterest and the main reasons for disinterest (similarly to EUROBAROMETER 224 of 2005) and two constructed variables. The first of these two assessed the general attitude towards science and technology (idem 2009); the second was an attempt to connect anomy characteristics to the attitude towards science and technology. Both constructs can be used in later analysis as potential predictors for other variables, e.g. do people with a higher S&T anomy score have a more negative opinion about nuclear energy? 9.1. General attitude towards science and technology First, the respondents were asked a series of four questions about their general attitude towards science and technology. Table 33 Items on the general attitude towards science and technology (ITEMS RANDOMIZED)

I will now read out a number of statements related to the role of science and technology. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with these statements using the following scale: AX 1 AX 2 AX 3 AX 4

The development of science and technology brings more benefits than harm. Future generations will have more opportunities as a result of science and technology. Science and technology make our lives easier and more comfortable. The risks that scientific and technological innovations entail outweigh the advantages.

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree 9. Don't know / no answer

The general attitude towards science and technology in the Belgian population is rather positive. However, in 2009 a slight positive shift was observed in the general attitude towards science and technology compared to 2002. This trend is reversed in 2011 as compared to 2009, see figure below. For all items there is slight switch towards a more negative general attitude.

85

For instance, only 54% of the respondents in 2011 were of the opinion that the development of science and technology brings more benefits than harm, vs. 59% in 2009, and 64% thought in 2011 that future generations will have more opportunities due to science and technology, compared to 71% in 2009. A question similar to AX3 was asked in 2010 in the EUROBAROMETER 340 on Science and technology. For Belgium, the results are in line with our results: 67% agreed the "S&T make our life healthier, easier and more comfortable", 21% had a neutral position and 11% disagreed.

Fig. 39 General attitude towards science and technology The reliability analysis performed on the four items measuring the general attitude towards science and technology showed that the fourth item does not belong to the same construct as the former three: the reliability coefficient of the scale formed with four items is α=0.67, whereas by taking only the first three items we get α=0.76. The analysis carried out with Principal Axis Factoring on AX1-3 revealed one factor extracted based on the criterion that the factors' eigenvalues should be larger than 1 and the 86

analysis of the scree plot. This factor accounts for 67% of the variance in the data. The table below shows the loading of the different items on the factor extracted. Table 34 Factor matrix for items on attitude towards science and technology Factor 1 AX1: The development of science and technology brings more benefits than harm. AX2: Future generations will have more opportunities as a result of science and technology. AX3: Science and technology make our lives easier and more comfortable.

.721 .734 .686

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. a. 1 factor extracted. 7 iterations required.

9.2. Anomy aspects in the attitude towards science and technology Next, we tested a series of questions aiming at measuring anomy aspects of the attitude towards science and technology. Table 35 Items on the general attitude towards science and technology (ITEMS RANDOMIZED

I will now read out a number of statements related to the role of science and technology. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with these statements using the following scale: AX 5 AX 6 AX 7 AX 8

So many things involve science and technology these days that it makes my life complicated. Science and technology are so difficult to understand that I find it hard to form an opinion about it. I feel that I have a better grip on things with the help of science and technology. All the rapid scientific and technological developments often make me feel awkward and out of place.

1. Strongly Disagree 2. Disagree 3. Neither agree, nor disagree 4. Agree 5. Strongly Agree 9. Don't know / no answer

Results are presented in the figure below.

87

Fig. 40 Anomy aspects of science and technology The reliability analysis performed on the four items measuring the anomy aspects of the attitude towards science and technology showed that the third item does not belong to the same construct as the other three: the reliability coefficient of the scale formed with all four items is α=0.74, whereas by taking only the first three items we get α=0.81. The analysis carried out with Principal Axis Factoring on AX5, AX6 and AX8 revealed one factor extracted based on the criterion that the factors' eigenvalues should be larger than 1 and the analysis of the scree plot. This factor accounts for 72% of the variance in the data. The table below shows the loading of the different items on the factor extracted. Table 36 Factor matrix for the anomy aspects related to science and technology Factor 1 AX5: So many things involve science and technology these days that it makes my life complicated. AX6: Science and technology are so difficult to understand that I find it hard to form an opinion about it.

.768

AX8: All the rapid scientific and technological developments often make me feel awkward and out of place.

.819

.720

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. a. 1 factor extracted. 9 iterations required.

A further analysis shows that the correlation between the factor measuring the general attitude towards science and technology and the factor measuring anomy aspects is statistically significant, but rather low (-0.29). The more one is convinced about the benefits of science and technology, the less anxiety he/she feels as regards S&T. The 88

regression analysis shows that the anomy factor is a statistically significant predictor, but the very low R square (0.08) indicates that is a very weak predictor.

9.3. Interest in science and technology and reasons for disinterest Finally, the respondents were asked if they were interested in science and technology and about possible reasons for disinterest. Table 37 Items on interest in science and technology AX 9 filter for AX10

I am interested in science and technology :

1. 2.

Yes No

AX9 (if AX10=No)

If you are not particularly interested in science and technology, can you tell me why?

1. I have no time 2. I don’t understand it 3. I don’t need it 4. I never thought about it 5. I do not care about it 6. No particular reason

From the 1020 respondents, about half of them (56%) responded that they were interested in science and technology, whereas 43% were not interested (50% in 2009). It is somewhat surprising that the general attitude towards science and technology has become slightly more negative that in 2009, whereas the interest in S&T has increased.

89

Fig. 41 Reasons for disinterest in science and technology The main reasons for disinterest are, similarly to the 2009 and the EUROBAROMETER 224 of 2005, that people do not care about it or that they do not understand science and technology.

10. Survey evaluation by the respondents The survey was ended with some questions about the survey. Table 38 Items on the evaluation of the survey Please state your opinion about the usefulness of this type of research MET 1 This questionnaire was interesting and gets me 1. Disagree completely thinking. 2. Disagree MET 2 I need more information to answer questions on 3. Neutral such complicated issues properly. 4. Agree MET 3 I felt limited by the answering categories

5. Agree completely

The answers were rather positive on these questions.

90

Fig. 42 Survey evaluation by the respondents

Only 15% did not find the questionnaire interesting. Most respondents found the answering categories adequate; only 27% felt some limitation in the answering categories. About half of the respondents felt however that they needed more information to answer the questions properly, but this opinion could have originated e.g. from the knowledge questions were we were testing in fact what the respondents already knew about the subject. In addition, the interviewers noted if the respondent was interested, bored, engaged or confused.

91

Fig. 43 Respondents' attitude The results show that, according to the observations of the interviewer, the largest majority of the respondents (almost 80%) were interested or even engaged in answering the questions of this survey. Only 10% are likely to have had real difficulties to answer all the questions, while 12% got bored or lost interest in the course of the interview.

92

11. References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6: 107-122. Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality 25: 285-301. Belgian Federal Crisis Centre. (2010). Efficacité des comprimés d'iode confirmée http://www.crisiscentrum.be/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=257&Ite mid=1. Carlé, B. and Hardeman, F. (2003). Veiligheid en risicoperceptie – resultaten van de opiniepeiling in november 2002 in België. SCK-CEN BLG 938 report, SCK•CEN, Mol, Belgium (in Dutch) and SCK•CEN BLG 939 report, Perceptions des risques et de la sécurité – résultats du sondage de novembre 2002 en Belgique (in French). www.sckcen.be. Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., Sherman, S. J., Corty, E., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1984). Predicting the onset of cigarette smoking in adolescents: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 14: 224-243. Crisiscentrum, F. B. Z. A. (2011). Nu weet u wat te doen bij een nucleair ongeval; Feedback over de nucleaire campagne 2011. Brussels, Belgium: Ministry for internal affairs. Eagly A. H. and Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Jooyoung, K., & Hye-Jin, P. (2009). Information Processing of Genetically Modified Food Messages Under Different Motives: An Adaptation of the Multiple-Motive HeuristicSystematic Model. Risk Analysis, 29(12), 1793-1806. Jourdain, J. R., Herviou, K., Bertrand, R., Clemente, M., & Petry, A. (2010). Medical Effectiveness of Iodine Prophylaxis in a Nuclear Reactor Emergency Situation and Overview of European Practices (No. 1337). France: RISKAUDIT IRSN/GRS International. Kahlor, L. A., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., & Neuwirth, K. (2006). Seeking and Processing Information About Impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28, 163-194. Perko T., Turcanu C., Schröder J., Carlé B. (2010). Risk perception of the Belgian population. Results of the public opinion survey in 2009. Open Report of the Belgian Nuclear Research Centre SCK•CEN, BLG-1070. ISSN 1379-2407. Mol, Belgium. Poliakoff E., Webb T. (2007). What Factors Predict Scientists’ Intentions to Participate in Public Engagement of Science Activities? Science Communication (29)2: 242-263.

93

Trumbo, W. C. (1999). Heuristic-Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgement. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 391-400. Trumbo, W. C. (2002). Information Processing and Risk Perception: An Adaption of the Heuristic-Systematic Model. Journal of Communication, 52, 367-382. Van Aeken, K., Turcanu, C., Bombaerts, G., Carlé, B., & Hardeman, F. (2006). Risk perception of the Belgian population. Results of the public opinion survey in 2006. SCK•CEN-BLG-1038 Report, Belgian Nuclear Research Centre. Mol Belgium. ISBN 9789076971131. www.sckcen.be Van Bladel, L., Pauwels, A., & Smeesters, P. (2000). The challenge of interacting with the public on nuclear emergency preparedness and iodine prophylaxis. In OECD (2001) Proceedings of the OECD-NEA Workshop Investing in Trust: Nuclear Regulators and the Public, 29 Nov. - 1 Dec. 2000, Paris, France, pp. 141-147.

94

Index of figures Fig. 1 Summary of survey items ........................................................................................ 12 Fig. 2 Risk perception of various risk items: overview for 2011 ....................................... 17 Fig. 3 Risk perception of nuclear and chemical accidents in 2006, 2009 and 2011 ......... 20 Fig. 4 Risk perception of nuclear and chemical waste in 2006, 2009 and 2011 ............... 21 Fig. 5 Risk perception of radiation risks, chemical risks and environmental pollution in 2006, 2009 and 2011 ........................................................................................................ 22 Fig. 6 Confidence in authorities: overview for 2011 ........................................................ 24 Fig. 7 Confidence in authorities in 2006, 2009 and 2011 for radiation risks, chemical risks and environmental pollution ............................................................................................ 25 Fig. 8 Opinions and feelings triggered by the accident at Fukushima (part 1), N=967 .... 27 Fig. 9 Opinions and feelings triggered by the accident at Fukushima (part 2), N=967 .... 28 Fig. 10 On the reduction of NPP's in Europe, N=1020 ...................................................... 30 Fig. 11 On the benefits vs. disadvantages of nuclear energy, N=1020 ............................ 31 Fig. 12 On the possibly negative influence of nuclear power plants on children's future, N=1020 .............................................................................................................................. 32 Fig. 13 Opinion about nuclear energy, N=1020 ................................................................ 33 Fig. 14 Factors seen as pleading in favour or against nuclear energy, N=1020 ............... 35 Fig. 15 Perceived safety of nuclear installations, N=1020 ................................................ 37 Fig. 16 Management of nuclear technologies, N=1020 .................................................... 38 Fig.17 Actors in the nuclear field: knowledge, truth and competence ............................ 40 Fig. 18 Nuclear actors depicted on the axes of trustworthiness (horizontal) and technical competence (vertical) ....................................................................................................... 41 Fig. 19 Experiences with the nuclear ................................................................................ 45 Fig. 20 Planned level of involvement in decision making concerning installations for nuclear research ............................................................................................................... 48 Fig. 21 Three dimensions of the attitude towards participation, N=1020 ....................... 49 Fig. 22 Additional items regarding participation in decision-making on installations for nuclear research ............................................................................................................... 51 Fig. 23 Willingness to participate depending on the organising actor ............................. 57 Fig. 24 Reasons for not sending comments to the Waste Plan ........................................ 60 Fig. 25 Reasons for non-participating in a future public consultation ............................. 61 Fig. 26 Opinions on the geological disposal for high-level waste ..................................... 63 Fig. 27 Opinion about nuclear energy, if geological disposal chosen for HLW ................ 63 Fig. 28 Opinion about nuclear energy with and without reference to waste disposal .... 64 Fig. 29 Opinion about construction of HLW near respondent's home ............................. 65 Fig. 30 Opinion about the involvement of future generations in long term management of HLW............................................................................................................................... 67 Fig. 31 Knowledge about the use of iodine tablets (N=690) ............................................ 71 Fig. 32 Opinion about the distribution of iodine tablets, N=1020 .................................... 73 Fig. 33 Acceptance of messages from the campaign for people aware vs. not aware of the campaign .................................................................................................................... 74 95

Fig. 34 Opinion about future distributions of iodine tablets ............................................ 75 Fig. 35 Acceptance of iodine tablets intake ...................................................................... 76 Fig. 36 Acceptance of intake of iodine tablets if recommended by the authorities ........ 77 Fig. 37 General opinion about iodine tablets ................................................................... 78 Fig. 38 Sistematic and heuristic processing of information relatde to iodine tablets ...... 80 Fig. 39 General attitude towards science and technology ............................................... 86 Fig. 40 Anomy aspects of science and technology ........................................................... 88 Fig. 41 Reasons for disinterest in science and technology ............................................... 90 Fig. 42 Survey evaluation by the respondents .................................................................. 91 Fig. 43 Respondents' attitude ........................................................................................... 92

96

Index of tables Table 1 Risk perception items in 2011 .............................................................................. 16 Table 2 Pattern matrix for PCA on risk perception items ................................................. 18 Table 3 Items for confidence in authorities in 2011 ......................................................... 23 Table 4 Filter question related to the Fukushima accident .............................................. 26 Table 5 Items related to the accident in Fukushima ........................................................ 26 Table 6 Items on the attitude towards nuclear energy .................................................... 29 Table 7 Factor matrix for items on attitude towards nuclear energy .............................. 32 Table 8 Item assessing the opinion about nuclear energy ............................................... 33 Table 9 Items on arguments in favour or against nuclear energy .................................... 34 Table 10 Items regarding the confidence in the management of nuclear technologies . 36 Table 11 Items on knowledge about and trustworthiness and competence of actors in the nuclear field ................................................................................................................ 39 Table 12 Items assessing knowledge about the nuclear domain ..................................... 42 Table 13 Items on experiences with the nuclear .............................................................. 44 Table 14 Item on past participation in public involvement activities............................... 46 Table 15 Item on planned participation ........................................................................... 47 Table 16 Items on the attitude towards participation in decisions concerning installations for nuclear research ..................................................................................... 48 Table 17 Factor matrix for items on attitude towards participation ................................ 49 Table 18 Items on public participation in decision making .............................................. 50 Table 19 Binary logistic regression for planned participation behaviour (N=840) ........... 53 Table 20 Ordinal logistic regression for planned participation behaviour (N=840) ......... 54 Table 21 Items on the actors organising public involvement activities ........................... 56 Table 22 Items related to the Waste Plan ........................................................................ 59 Table 23 Items regarding opinion about geological disposal of HLW .............................. 62 Table 24 Item related to construction of a HLW disposal near one's home .................... 64 Table 25 Items concerning the involvement of future generations in RWM ................... 66 Table 26 Items on the reception of the iodine campaign ................................................ 69 Table 27 Items on the acceptance of the iodine campaign .............................................. 71 Table 28 Items on heuristic and systematic information processing ............................... 79 Table 29 Latent constructs used to study predictors for information processing ........... 81 Table 30 Group statistics for sistematic and heuristic processing (factor scores). .......... 82 Table 31 Binary logistic regression for AW24 ................................................................... 83 Table 32 Acceptance of information from the iodine campaign ...................................... 83 Table 33 Items on the general attitude towards science and technology ....................... 85 Table 34 Factor matrix for items on attitude towards science and technology .............. 87 Table 35 Items on the general attitude towards science and technology ....................... 87 Table 36 Factor matrix for the anomy aspects related to science and technology ......... 88 Table 37 Items on interest in science and technology ..................................................... 89 Table 38 Items on the evaluation of the survey ............................................................... 90

97

Erratum Version 2.0 includes corrections in Section 6.2. and 6.4. Read paragraph 1 in page 49 as "the attitude towards participation is somewhat sceptical, with average scores near the middle point of the scale (4) for all three dimensions investigated (4.02 for ST1, 4.25 for ST2, and 3.80 for ST3)". Read last conclusion on page 55 as: "At the same time, a more positive attitude towards nuclear would more likely lead to a lesser degree of involvement". The executive summary was updated accordingly.

98

Annex 2 Questionnaire - Dutch Background S1

Taal van het interview

S2

Geslacht van de respondent

S3 S4 S5

Woonplaats van de respondent Geboortejaar Wat is uw hoogste behaalde diploma?

S6

[Indien S5 = 8 of 9]: Bent u meer bekend met humane wetenschappen of met natuurwetenschappen? Wat is uw beroep? Duid in het volgende lijstje het beroep aan dat het best overeenstemt met uw professionele activiteiten. Zorgt u voor het hoofdbestanddeel van het inkomen?

S7

S8 [als S8=ja, ga direct naar S11] S9 [enkel als S8=nee] S 10

S 11

Wat is het beroep van de belangrijkste kostwinner in het gezin? En wat is het hoogst behaalde diploma van de belangrijkste kostwinnaar in het gezin?

Hoe oud is het jongste gezinslid?

1. Nederlands 2. Frans 1. man 2. vrouw Postcode Geboortejaar 1. Lager of geen 2. Secundair - algemeen lager 3. Secundair - algemeen hoger 4. Secundair - technisch of artistiek lager 5. Secundair - technisch of artistiek hoger 6. Secundair - beroeps lager 7. Secundair - beroeps hoger 8. Hoger - niet universitair 9. Hoger - universitair 1. Humane wetenschappen 2. Natuurwetenschappen Lijst (zie p.2)

1. ja 2. nee Lijst (zie p.2) 1. Lager of geen 2. Secundair - algemeen lager 3. Secundair - algemeen hoger 4. Secundair - technisch of artistiek lager 5. Secundair - technisch of artistiek hoger 6. Secundair - beroeps lager 7. Secundair - beroeps hoger 8. Hoger - niet universitair 9. Hoger - universitair …. [getal]

99

S 12

Heeft één van uw ouders een andere nationaliteit dan de Belgische?

1. ja 2. nee

S 13

Leest u tijdschriften zoals Natuur en Techniek, Eos, National Geographic of wetenschappelijke bijlagen in kranten?

1. Dikwijls 2. Soms 3. Nooit

S7 + S9 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 ZE

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

L F S T A landbouwer: minder dan 15 ha N D I G E N

1

landbouwer : 15 ha of meer

2

ambachtsman, handelaar, met 5 loontrekkende of minder (= kleine zelfstandige)

3

industrieel, groothandelaar met 6 loontrekkende of meer

4

vrij beroep (dokter, advocaat, notaris, …)

5

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4 BE D I lid E van de algemene directie, hoger kader (directeur, bestuurN der, ..) verantwoordelijk voor 5 loontrekkende of minder D E N

6

lid van de algemene directie, hoger kader (directeur, bestuurder, ..) verantwoordelijk voor 6 tot 10 loontrekkende

7

lid van de algemene directie, hoger kader (directeur, bestuurder, ..) verantwoordelijk voor 11 loontrekkende of meer

8

middenkader, geen deel uitmakend van de algemene directie, verantwoordelijk voor 5 loontrekkende of minder

9

middenkader, geen deel uitmakend van de algemene directie, verantwoordelijk voor 6 loontrekkende of meer

10

andere bedienden, hoofdzakelijk kantoorwerk

11

andere bedienden, hoofdzakelijk geen kantoorwerk (verpleegster, leerkracht, politie, ..)

12

100

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.6 A

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.5

R B E geschoolde arbeider, opzichter I D E R S

13

ongeschoolde arbeider, handenarbeid

14

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.8 IN

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.7

A C T invalide I E V E N

15

gepensioneerd (CODEER OOK HET LAATST UITGEOEFEND BEROEP)

16

student

17

huisvrouw

18

werkloos (CODEER OOK HET LAATST UITGEOEFEND BEROEP)

19

rentenier

20

Risk perception and confidence in authorities Er volgt nu een lijstje met risico's, waarvan het ene groter kan zijn/is dan het andere. We vragen u om telkens de grootte van het risico voor een doorsnee Belg in te schatten en dit aan te duiden op volgende schaal: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Zeer laag Laag Gemiddeld Hoog Zeer hoog Weet niet/geen antwoord

[Items randomiseren] RP 1 Verkeersongevallen

1. Zeer laag

101

RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP RP

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Tabaksgebruik Druggebruik Kanker Milieuvervuiling Radioactief afval Scheikundig afval Een ongeval in een scheikundige installatie Een ongeval in een nucleaire installatie Straling van GSM-toestellen Natuurlijke straling (bv. radon of straling uit de ruimte) Röntgenfoto's in de geneeskunde Restanten van bestrijdingsmiddelen op fruit en groenten Een terroristische aanslag met een radioactieve bron Restanten van radioactiviteit in de voeding Fijn stof in de lucht

2. Laag 3. Gemiddeld 4. Hoog 5. Zeer hoog 9. Weet niet/geen antwoord

Nu zou ik graag opnieuw deze lijst met risico's voorleggen. Deze keer vragen we u hoe groot uw vertrouwen is in de overheid voor de maatregelen die ze neemt om de bevolking tegen elk van deze risico's te beschermen. U kunt wederom van dezelfde schaal gebruik maken. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Zeer laag Laag Gemiddeld Hoog Zeer hoog Weet niet/geen antwoord

[Items randomiseren] RC 1 Verkeersongevallen RC 2 Tabaksgebruik RC 3 Druggebruik RC 4 Kanker RC 5 Milieuvervuiling RC 6 Radioactief afval RC 7 Scheikundig afval RC 8 Een ongeval in een scheikundige installatie RC 9 Een ongeval in een nucleaire installatie RC 10 Straling van GSM-toestellen RC 11 Natuurlijke straling (bv. radon of straling uit de ruimte) RC 12 Röntgenfoto's in de geneeskunde RC 13 Restanten van bestrijdingsmiddelen op fruit en groenten RC 14 Een terroristische aanslag met een radioactieve bron RC 15 Restanten van radioactiviteit in de voeding RC 16 Fijn stof in de lucht

1. Zeer laag 2. Laag 3. Gemiddeld 4. Hoog 5. Zeer hoog 9. Weet niet/geen antwoord

Attitude towards science and technology

102

Nu zal ik u een aantal uitspraken opsommen in verband met de rol van wetenschap en technologie. Geef me telkens aan in hoeverre u er al dan niet mee akkoord kan gaan, volgens de volgende schaal. [Items randomiseren] AX 1 De ontwikkeling van wetenschap en technologie geeft meer voordelen dan nadelen. AX 2 Dankzij wetenschap en technologie zullen er meer kansen zijn voor toekomstige generaties. AX 3 Wetenschap en technologie maken ons leven gemakkelijker en meer comfortabel. AX 4 De risico’s die wetenschappelijke en technologische innovaties met zich meebrengen wegen zwaarder dan de voordelen.

1. Helemaal niet akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord

[Items randomiseren] AX 5 De dag van vandaag hebben zo veel dingen te maken met wetenschap en technologie dat het mijn leven ingewikkeld maakt AX 6 Wetenschap en technologie zijn zo moeilijk te begrijpen dat ik het lastig vind om er een mening over te vormen. AX 7 Ik heb het gevoel dat ik meer greep op dingen heb met de hulp van wetenschap en technologie. AX 8 Door alle snelle wetenschappelijke en technologische ontwikkelingen voel ik me vaak onbeholpen en vervreemd. AX 9 [filter voor AX10] AX10 [enkel als AX9=nee]

5. Helemaal akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Ik ben geïnteresseerd in wetenschap en technologie.

1. ja 2. nee

Indien u niet echt geïnteresseerd bent in

1. Ik heb er geen tijd voor 2. Ik begrijp het niet 3. Ik heb het niet nodig 4. Ik heb er nooit over nagedacht 5. Ik ben er niet mee bezig 6. Geen speciale reden

wetenschap en technologie, kan u vertellen waarom?

Attitude towards nuclear energy Ik ga nu uw mening vragen over een aantal standpunten in verband met kernenergie. Kunt u antwoorden in welke mate u akkoord gaat? RT 1 Globaal genomen denk ik dat de voordelen van 1. Helemaal niet akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord kernenergie groter zijn dan de nadelen. 3. Min of meer akkoord RT 3 De vermindering van het aantal kerncentrales 4. Eerder akkoord in Europa is een goede zaak. 5. Helemaal akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen

103

antwoord RT 4

Wat is uw mening over kernenergie? Ik ben ...

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Helemaal voor Eerder voor Noch voor noch tegen Eerder tegen Helemaal tegen Weet niet/geen antwoord

Arguments pro-against nuclear energy TIMER NE1-NE12 ON. Betreffende kernenergie in België staan verschillende aspecten voortdurend ter discussie. Pleiten, volgens u, de volgende factoren voor of tegen kernenergie? Deze factor pleit... [Items randomiseren] De transparantie van de nucleaire industrie. NE1 De veiligheid van de nucleaire installaties in NE2 België. Het nucleair afval NE3 Mogelijk misbruik van nucleaire technologieën door terroristen Grote elektriciteitsproductie op beperkt NE5 aantal plaatsen (twee in België) Kernenergie maakt ons afhankelijk van grote NE6 multinationals NE7 Kernenergie bevordert onze nationale energie-onafhankelijkheid NE8 De kosten van elektriciteit geproduceerd in kerncentrales NE9 De lage CO2-uitstoot bij de elektriciteitsproductie in kerncentrales NE12 Betrouwbaarheid van energievoorziening door Belgische kerncentrales TIMER NE1-NE12 OFF. NE4

1. Helemaal tegen kernenergie 2. Eerder tegen kernenergie 3. Noch voor, noch tegen kernenergie 4. Eerder voor kernenergie 5. Helemaal voor kernenergie 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Public participation in decision processes Burgers kunnen betrokken worden in of deelnemen aan beslissingen betreffende hun omgeving op verschillende manieren, bijvoorbeeld in een burgerforum, een vergadering in het gemeentehuis, een internet forum.

104

ST01

Heeft u in het verleden deelgenomen aan activiteiten waar het publiek betrokken werd?

Veronderstel nu dat er plannen bestaan om een nucleaire gemeente. ST02 Indien er een initiatief is om burgers te betrekken in besluitvorming aangaande een nieuwe nucleaire installatie in uw gemeente, in welke mate zou u dan betrokken willen zijn? (1 MOGELIJK ANTWOORD)

ROTATION ST1. In welke mate is volgens u, op een schaal van 1 tot 7, uw participatie in beslissingen betreffende deze nucleaire installatie ST2. [waardevol/nodig/bevredigend]? ST3.

9=Weet niet/Geen antwoord

1. Ja 2. Nee 9. Weet niet/ Geen antwoord onderzoekinstallatie te bouwen in uw 1 =Ik wil niet betrokken zijn 2=Ik wil informatie ontvangen over de installatie 3=Ik wil informatie ontvangen en mijn mening geven 4=Ik wil deelnemen in een dialoog om tot een akkoord te komen 5= Ik wil een volwaardige partner zijn in de besluitvorming 9=Weet niet/ Geen antwoord

7 puntenschaal, zinloos=1 en waardevol=7

waarbij

7 puntenschaal niet nodig=1 en nodig=7

waarbij

7 puntenschaal waarbij teleurstellend=1 en bevredigend=7

Duid aan in hoeverre u akkoord of niet akkoord gaat met volgende stellingen betreffende de deelname in beslissingen over een nieuwe nucleair onderzoeksinstallatie in uw gemeente. ST4. De meeste mensen die belangrijk zijn voor mij 1. Helemaal niet akkoord (familie, vrienden) zouden mijn participatie 2. Niet echt akkoord steunen. 3. Min of meer akkoord ST5. Ik heb de plicht als burger om deel te nemen 4. Eerder akkoord aan zulke activiteiten 5. Helemaal akkoord ST6. Van de mensen die ik ken, zou niemand deelnemen aan zulke activiteiten. ST7.

Ik vertrouw er op dat ik door te participeren de besluitvorming kan beïnvloeden.

ST8.

Ik heb niet genoeg vrije tijd om deel te nemen aan zulke activiteiten.

ST9.

Ik zou enkel participeren als ik vergoed zou worden.

9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Dergelijke inspraak kan door verschillende instanties georganiseerd worden Op een 7 puntenschaal, in welke mate zou u willen deelnemen aan activiteiten van burgerparticipatie in beslissingen met betrekking tot nucleaire installaties, indien die activiteiten georganiseerd werden door:

105

ST12.

De controlerende overheid

ST13. Het bedrijf dat het project beheert ST14. Een niet gouvernementele organisatie ST15. Een onafhankelijk instituut, bijvoorbeeld een universiteit ST16. Een lokale actiegroep

7 puntenschaal, waarbij: helemaal niet=1 en heel graag=7 9=Weet niet/Geen antwoord

Confidence in the management of nuclear technologies Meer in het algemeen, zouden we u nu vragen willen stellen over uw vertrouwen in het beheer van nucleaire technologieën. Kunt u aangeven in hoeverre u akkoord of niet akkoord gaat met de volgende uitspraken: [items randomiseren] MN 1 Kernreactoren in België worden op een veilige manier uitgebaat.

1. Helemaal niet akkoord

MN 2

Er is onvoldoende controle door de overheid op de veiligheid in nucleaire installaties in België.

MN 3

Ik geloof dat radioactief afval in België op een veilige manier opgeslagen wordt.

MN 4

Het transport van radioactief materiaal is niet veilig.

4. Eerder akkoord

MN 5

De productie van brandstof voor kerncentrales is slecht voor het milieu.

5. Helemaal akkoord

MN 6

Ik voel me goed beschermd tegen de risico’s van nucleaire installaties.

MN 7

De kerncentrales zetten de toekomst van onze kinderen op het spel.

2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord

9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Actors in the nuclear field Wanneer we kijken naar het domein van kernenergie en nucleaire activiteiten, kan u zeggen: a) of u de volgende spelers kent? b) en indien gekend, kan u ons vertellen of u denkt dat zij de waarheid vertellen over risico's en voordelen van nucleaire technologieën? c) en indien gekend, of u hen als technisch bekwaam beschouwt in dit domein? Filter: "vertellen de waarheid" en "technisch bekwaam" enkel stellen indien “kennen”=ja

[Items randomiseren]

106

NST

NSC Vertellen de Kennen waarheid 1. De regering 2. De Milieubewegingen 3. Electrabel / Suez GDF (de uitbater van de kerncentrales) 4. De journalisten 5. Het FANC (het federaal agentschap voor nucleaire controle) 6. De geneesheren 7. NIRAS (nationale instelling voor radioactief afval en verrijkte splijtstoffen) 8. IAEA (internationaal atoom- en energieagentschap) in Wenen, Oostenrijk 9. IRE (nationaal instituut voor radioactieve stoffen), Fleurus. 10. Het SCK·CEN (Studiecentrum voor kernenergie) in Mol. 11. Wetenschappers uit de universiteiten 12. Het Belgisch nucleair forum 13. Het leger 14. Bel V, een controlerende instantie 15. Belgoprocess (een bedrijf gespecialiseerd in het radioactief afval beheer en het afbrak van nucleaire installaties), Dessel 16. PERKO, een instituut gespecialiseerd in communicatie voor nucleaire activiteiten

Technisch bekwaam Kennen: 1. Ja 2. Nee Waarheid & technisch bekwaam: 1. Helemaal niet akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord 5. Helemaal akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Fukushima FU 1

Bent u op de hoogte van het kernongeval van Fukushima (in Japan), na de recente aardbeving en tsunami?

1. Ja 2. Nee

Indien FU1=Ja Wij zouden graag uw mening kennen over dit ongeval. Kunt u aangeven in hoeverre u akkoord of niet akkoord gaat met de volgende uitspraken? Wat gebeurde in Japan ... FU 2 [enkel als FU1=Ja]

Is niet relevant voor België omdat er geen groot risico is op aardbeving of tsunami.

1. Helemaal niet

107

FU 3 [enkel Ja]

als

FU1=

Is relevant voor België omdat er een risico bestaat op overstromingen.

FU 4 [enkel Ja]

als

FU1=

Maakt me meer bezorgd over de gevaren van Belgische nucleaire installaties

FU 5 [enkel Ja]

als

FU1=

Geeft me een opgelucht gevoel dat onze kerncentrales in België goed beheerd worden

akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord

FU 6 [enkel Ja]

als

FU1=

Geeft me het gevoel dat we nooit alle mogelijke risico’s van nucleaire installaties kunnen voorspellen

FU 7 [enkel Ja]

als

FU1=

Zet me aan om uit te zoeken hoe ik mezelf kan beschermen in een nucleaire noodsituatie

5. Helemaal akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Knowledge about the nuclear domain Wat denkt u over de volgende vragen: AW 1 Is een vuile bom hetzelfde als een atoombom?

1. Ja

AW 2

Zal blootstelling aan radioactieve stralen altijd leiden tot radioactieve besmetting? Wordt radioactief afval enkel geproduceerd door kerncentrales?

2. Nee

Welk percentage van de elektriciteit in België wordt in kerncentrales geproduceerd?

1. Minder dan 25 %

AW 3

AW 4

9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

2. Tussen 25-45 % 3. Tussen 45-65 % 4. Meer dan 65 % 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

Kunt u aangeven of er een kerncentrale is in volgende plaatsen? [Items randomiseren] AW 5 Doel AW 6 Hasselt AW 7 Tihange AW 8 Namen AW 9 Lier

1. Ja 2. Nee 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

Welke van de volgende sectoren gebruikt nucleaire technologie?

108

[Items randomiseren] AW 10 AW 11 AW 12 AW 13

1. Ja

Elektriciteitsproductie

2. Nee

De medische sector

9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

De voedingsindustrie De textielindustrie

Wat denkt u van de volgende stelling: is het waar of fout? AW 14 Er bestaat een plan om de veiligheid van de bevolking te verzekeren in geval van een nucleair ongeval.

1. Waar 2. Fout 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

Kunt u onderstaande vragen beantwoorden?: ROTATION AW 15 Radioactief afval wordt verzameld en behandeld

1. gescheiden van ander afval 2. samen met het ander afval 9. ik weet het niet/geen antwoord

AW 16

Radioactiviteit kan direct gemeten worden:

1. met speciale instrumenten 2. het kan niet gemeten worden 9. ik weet het niet/geen antwoord

AW 17

De meeteenheid voor radioactiviteit is:

1. 2. 3. 9.

becquerel hertz meter/seconde ik weet het niet/geen antwoord

Experiences with "nuclear" Hebt u ooit…: AW 18 Een kerncentrale of nucleaire onderzoeksreactor bezocht? AW 19 Dichtbij (in een straal van 20km) een nucleaire installatie (zoals kerncentrale of onderzoekscentrum) gewoond? AW 20 Een job gehad waarbij gebruik gemaakt wordt van radioactiviteit (kerncentrale, nucleaire industrie of een ziekenhuis waar radioactieve bronnen gebruikt werden,…)?

1. Ja 2. Nee

109

AW 21

Een familielid of goede vriend gehad die een job had waarbij radioactiviteit gebruikt werd?

Iodine campaign Reception of information TIMER RI1 ON. Eerder dit jaar organiseerden de autoriteiten een informatiecampagne aangaande de verdeling van jodiumtabletten. RI 1 Hebt u weet van de verdeling van jodium 1. Ja tabletten? [Indien 2. Nee RI1=nee/WN, ga IF 1  RI 2 direct naar AI1] IF 2 OR 9 AI1 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord TIMER RI1 OFF. Wij zouden graag willen weten wat u zich herinnert van deze campagne. Weet U het juiste antwoord op de volgende vragen? RI 2 Weet u wie uitgenodigd werd om 1. Iedereen in België jodium tabletten op te halen? 2. De mensen die in een bepaalde straal rond een nucleaire installatie wonen 3. Mensen die met chemische stoffen werken 4. Mensen die met radioactiviteit werken RI 3

RI 4

In geval van nucleair alarm, moeten de mensen dan de tabletten onmiddellijk nemen of moeten ze wachten op instructies? Waar kan je de jodium tabletten krijgen?

9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord 1. Wachten op instructies 2. Onmiddellijk nemen in geval van nucleair alarm 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord 1. Bij de lokale apotheek 2. In de specifieke centra bij de nucleaire installaties 3. Bij de huisdoctor 4. Op het gemeentehuis 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

RI 5

Worden deze tabletten gratis verdeeld of moet men er voor betalen?

1. Gratis 2. Betalen 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

110

Waartegen beschermt volgens u een jodiumtablet bij een nucleair ongeval? [Items randomiseren] AW 22 Long kanker AW 23 Leukemie AW 24 Schildklierkanker AW 25 Botkanker AW 26 Brandwonden op de huid

1. Ja 2. Nee 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Acceptance of information from the iodine campaign [Tekst tonen als RI1=2 of 9]: De autoriteiten organiseerden in het kader van het nucleair noodplan een verdeling van jodium tabletten voor mensen die wonen binnen een bepaalde straal van nucleaire installaties. [ALL]: Kunt u aangeven in hoeverre u akkoord of niet akkoord gaat met de volgende uitspraken? AI 1 De distributie van jodium tabletten is een goed idee. 1. Helemaal niet akkoord AFTER AI1: TIMER AI2 ON. 2. Niet echt akkoord AI 2 De overheid verzekert dat de jodium tabletten 3. Min of meer akkoord gezondheidseffecten kunnen verminderen indien er een nucleair ongeval zou zijn. Bent u het daarmee 4. Eerder akkoord eens? 5. Helemaal akkoord AFTER AI2: TIMER AI2 OFF. TIMER AI3 ON. AI 3 Bent u akkoord met de distributie van de jodium 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord tabletten binnen een bepaalde straal rond nucleaire installaties? AFTER AI3: TIMER AI3 OFF. AI 4 Hebt u ooit een uitnodiging om jodium tabletten af te halen ontvangen? 1. Ja AI 5 [Indien Ja in AI 4] 2. Nee Indien ja, hebt u de jodium tabletten afgehaald? AI 6 Indien u in de toekomst een uitnodiging zou krijgen om jodium tabletten af te halen, zou u dan de tabletten gaan halen en ze bij u thuis bewaren? AI 7 Zou u graag thuis de jodium tabletten hebben, zelfs als u niet in zone van de verdeling woont? AFTER AI7: TIMER AI8 ON. AI 8 In geval van nucleair alarm, wat zou u dan doen 1. Ik zou wachten op met de tabletten? instructies AFTER AI8: TIMER AI8 OFF. 2. Ik zou ze onmiddellijk nemen als er een nucleair alarm is 3. Ik zou ze helemaal niet nemen 4. Ik zal op dat moment beslissen

111

9. Weet niet/geen antwoord AI 9

Hebt u dergelijke jodium tabletten thuis?

1. Ja 2. Neen 9. ik weet het niet/geen antwoord

In geval van een kernongeval, zou u de maatregelen van de overheid opvolgen, voor de onderstaande voorbeelden? AI 10 AI 11

De jodium tabletten nemen indien de overheid het aanbeveelt. Jodium tabletten aan mijn kinderen geven indien de overheid het aanbeveelt.

1. Ja, want het is nuttig 2. Ja, omdat het moet 3. Nee 9. Weet niet/ geen antwoord

Nu zou ik graag een paar vragen stellen in verband met uw mening over de jodium tabletten. Denkt u dat: AI 12 AI 13

Jodium tabletten de mensen een vals gevoel van veiligheid geven Jodium tabletten een verkwisting van geld zijn

1. Helemaal niet akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord 5. Helemaal akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

Heuristic vs systematic information processing of the information from the iodine campaign [If RI1=1] Kan u antwoorden in hoeverre u akkoord gaat met volgende uitspraken? GEFILTERD MET RI1=1 (only for those who know about the campaign) [items randomiseren] SI 1 Om volledig geïnformeerd te zijn aangaande 1. Helemaal niet akkoord het gebruik van jodium tabletten, denk ik 2. Niet echt akkoord dat hoe meer standpunten ik kan vernemen, [enkel 3. Min of meer akkoord hoe beter. als 4. Eerder akkoord RI1=1] SI 2

SI 3

Ik volgde zorgvuldig de informatie die voorgesteld werd in de informatiecampagne over jodium tabletten. Toen het onderwerp van jodiumtabletten naar voren kwam, heb ik getracht er meer over te leren.

5. Helemaal akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

112

SI 4

SI 5

HI 1 HI 2

HI 3

HI 4

HI 5

Het was belangrijk voor mij duidelijk te weten hoe ik de jodium tabletten moet gebruiken. Wanneer ik informatie tegenkwam over jodium tabletten, heb ik deze zorgvuldig bestudeerd. Over dergelijke onderwerpen volg ik mijn instinct. Ervaring uit het verleden met gezondheid gerelateerde onderwerpen, hebben mij geholpen om mij een mening te vormen aangaande het gebruik van jodium tabletten. Aangaande het gebruik van jodium tabletten zal ik gewoon vertrouwen op de experten en hun aanbevelingen respecteren. Betreffende beslissingen rond jodium tabletten, volg ik de anderen zoals bijvoorbeeld mijn familie, buren. Ik kan gemakkelijk een mening vormen over het gebruik van jodium tabletten uitgaande van mijn eigen kennis zonder bijkomende informatie.

Radioactive waste Radioactief afval wordt ingedeeld in verschillende categorieën. Enigszins vereenvoudigd voorgesteld, maakt men een onderscheid tussen twee hoofdcategorieën. Het zogenaamde hoogactieve afval straalt fel en zal over een zeer lange periode radioactief blijven (duizenden jaren); het laagactief afval straalt minder intensief en wordt ongevaarlijk na ongeveer 300 jaar. De volgende vragen gaan over het hoogactief afval. In de zomer van 2010 werd een publiekconsultatie georganiseerd om de mensen naar hun mening te vragen over de manier waarop er omgegaan moet worden met hoogactief afval. Informatie werd gegeven onder de vorm van 2 documenten, het "Afvalplan" en de "Milieueffectrapportage". RW 1

Was u op de hoogte van deze publiekconsultatie?

1. Ja 2. Nee

RW 2 RW 3

[Indien RW1= Ja] Heeft u commentaren ingezonden om uw mening te geven?

1. Ja

[Indien RW1 =Ja en RW2 = Nee] Waarom hebt u geen commentaar ingezonden?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

2. Nee Ik had geen tijd Ik was niet geïnteresseerd Het onderwerp is te moeilijk Het belangt mij niet aan Het heeft weinig invloed op 113

RW 4 RW 5

Als er een gelijkaardige consultatie georganiseerd wordt in de toekomst, zou u dan deelnemen? [Indien RW4=Nee] Waarom niet?

de eindbeslissing 6. Ik had geen commentaar 7. Andere redenen 1. Ja 2. Nee 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Ik heb geen tijd Ik heb geen interesse Het onderwerp is te moeilijk Het belangt mij niet aan Het heeft weinig invloed op de eindbeslissing 6. Andere redenen

TIMER RW6-RW13 ON. Momenteel wordt voor het lange termijnbeheer van hoogactief afval diepe geologische berging naar voren geschoven. Deze optie houdt in dat het afval verpakt en permanent begraven wordt, in een daartoe bestemde constructie in een kleilaag een paar honderd meter onder de grond. Wanneer de berging opgevuld is, wordt deze uit veiligheidsoverwegingen afgesloten om de toegang te verhinderen. Geef aan in hoeverre u wel of niet akkoord gaat met de volgende beweringen met betrekking tot de geologische berging van hoogactief afval: RW 6 RW 7 RW 8

RW 9

Geologische berging lost het probleem van hoogradioactief afval op. Geologische berging is geen aanvaardbare beheersoptie voor hoogradioactief afval. Toekomstige generaties moeten toegang tot de geologische berging hebben, zelfs als dit de veiligheid misschien in het gedrang brengt. Indien geologische berging gekozen wordt als beheersoptie voor hoogradioactief afval, wat is dan uw mening over de verdere ontwikkeling van kernenergie? Ik ben ...

1. Helemaal niet akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord 5. Helemaal akkoord 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Weet niet / Geen antwoord Helemaal voor Eerder voor Noch voor noch tegen Eerder tegen Helemaal tegen Weet niet/geen antwoord

Kunt u een antwoord te geven op de volgende vraag?: RW 10

Indien er plannen bestonden om een ondergrondse berging voor hoogradioactief afval nabij uw woning te bouwen, met welke van de volgende beweringen gaat u dan het meest akkoord? (1 ANTWOORD MOGELIJK)

1=Ik wil niet betrokken zijn 2=Ik wil informatie over de berging ontvangen 3=Ik wil informatie ontvangen en mijn mening uiten 5= Ik wil deel uitmaken van de besluitvorming 6 = Ik zou nooit akkoord gaan met een berging nabij mijn woning en zou ertegen protesteren.

114

Dan zou ik u nog een paar meer algemene uitspraken over het beheer van hoogactief afval willen voorleggen: RW 11 De generaties die gebruik maken van kernenergie moeten verantwoordelijk zijn voor het afval dat hieruit voortkomt, niet de toekomstige generaties. RW 12 Omdat radioactief afval over vele generaties gevaarlijk blijft, moeten we er beslissingen over kunnen nemen.

1. Helemaal niet akkoord

RW 13 Omdat er nu nog geen goede oplossing voor radioactief afval bestaat, moeten we het lange termijnbeheer overlaten aan toekomstige generaties.

5. Helemaal akkoord

2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord 9. Weet niet / Geen antwoord

TIMER RW6-RW13 OFF.

META Kunt u uw mening geven over dit onderzoek? MET 1 Deze vragenlijst was interessant en zet me aan het denken MET 2 Ik heb meer informatie nodig om vragen over zulke gecompliceerde onderwerpen correct te beantwoorden. MET 3 Ik voelde me beperkt door de voorgestelde antwoordmogelijkheden.

1. Helemaal niet akkoord 2. Niet echt akkoord 3. Min of meer akkoord 4. Eerder akkoord 5. Helemaal akkoord

Interviewer's opinion about the interview (Aanduiden, NIET vragen aan respondent) INT1

Nota van de interviewer over de geïnterviewde: wat beschrijft best de houding van de geïnterviewde?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Geïnteresseerd Verveeld Geëngageerd Verward

Bedankt voor uw bereidwillige medewerking en nog een prettige dag!

115

Annex 3 – Questionnaire - French Background S1

Langue de l’interview

S2

Sexe de la personne interrogée

S3 S4 S5

Résidence du répondant Année de naissance Quel est le plus haut diplôme obtenu?

S6

[Si S5 = 8 ou 9]: Vous êtes plus familier(e) avec les sciences humaines ou les sciences naturelles? Quel est votre profession actuelle? Indiquez la profession appropriée dans la liste suivante Êtes-vous le principal responsable des revenus dans le ménage?

S7

S8 [si S8=oui, passez à S11] S9 [si S8=non] S 10

Quelle est la profession du principal responsable des revenus dans le ménage? Quel est le diplôme le plus haut obtenu par le principal responsable des revenus dans le ménage?

1. Néerlandais 2. Français 1. homme 2. femme Code postal Année de naissance 1. Primaire 2. Secondaire - général inférieur 3. Secondaire - général supérieur 4. Secondaire - technique ou artistique inférieur 5. Secondaire - technique ou artistique supérieur 6. Secondaire - professionnel inférieur 7. Secondaire - professionnel supérieur 8. Supérieur - non universitaire 9. Supérieur - universitaire 1. Sciences humaines 2. Sciences naturelles Liste (p.2)

1. oui 2. non Liste (p.2) 1. Primaire 2. Secondaire - général inférieur 3. Secondaire - général supérieur 4. Secondaire - technique ou artistique inférieur 5. Secondaire - technique ou artistique supérieur 6. Secondaire - professionnel inférieur 7. Secondaire - professionnel supérieur 116

S 11 S 12 S 13

Quel âge a le plus jeune membre de votre famille? Un de vos parents a-t-il une autre nationalité que la nationalité belge ? Lisez-vous des magazines comme Science et Vie, La recherche, Géo, Sciences et avenir ou de suppléments scientifiques dans les journaux?

8. Supérieur - non universitaire 9. Supérieur - universitaire …. [nombre] 1. Oui 2. Non 1. Souvent 2. Parfois 3. Jamais

S7 + S9 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.10 I N D E P E agriculteur : moins de 15 ha 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.9 N D A N T S

1

agriculteur : 15 ha ou plus

2

artisan, commerçant avec 5 salariés ou moins (= petit indépendant)

3

industriel, gros commerçant avec 6 salariés ou plus

4

profession libérale (docteur, avocat, notaire, …)

5

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.11 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.12 E

M P membre de la direction générale, cadre supérieur (directeur, L administrateur, ..) responsable de 5 salariés ou moins O Y E S membre de la direction générale, cadre supérieur (directeur, administrateur, ..) responsable de 6 à 10 salariés membre de la direction générale, cadre supérieur (directeur, administrateur, ..) responsable de 11 salariés ou plus cadre moyen ne faisant pas partie de la direction générale, responsable de 5 salariés ou moins cadre moyen ne faisant pas partie de la direction générale, responsable de 6 salariés ou plus autres, principalement travail de bureau autres, principalement pas de travail de bureau (infirmière, instituteur, policier, ..)

6

7 8 9 10 11 12

117

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.14 O U V R ouvrier qualifié, contremaître 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.13 I E R S

13

ouvrier non qualifié, manœuvre

14

1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.16 I N A C invalide 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.15 T I F S

15

pensionné/retraité (CODER AUSSI LA DERNIERE PROFESSION EXERCEE)

16

étudiant

17

ménagère

18

chômeur (CODER AUSSI LA DERNIERE PROFESSION EXERCEE)

19

Rentier

20

Risk perception and confidence in authorities Vous trouverez ci-dessous une liste de risques dont certains pourraient être plus importants que d’autres. À l’aide de l’échelle suivante, pourriez-vous nous indiquer dans quelle mesure, selon vous, ces risques sont élevés ou faibles pour le Belge moyen: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. RP RP RP RP

Très faible Faible Moyen Elevé Très élevé Ne sait pas, pas de réponse

[Randomiser] 1 Les accidents de la route 2 Le tabagisme 3 La drogue 4 Le cancer

1. Très faible 2. Faible 3. Moyen

118

RP RP RP RP RP RP RP

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

RP RP RP RP RP

12 13 14 15 16

La pollution environnementale Les déchets radioactifs Les déchets chimiques Un accident dans une installation chimique Un accident dans une installation nucléaire Les rayonnements des téléphones portables Les rayonnements naturels (ex. radon ou rayonnements cosmiques) Les radiographies médicales Les résidus de pesticides sur les fruits et les légumes Un attentat terroriste avec une source radioactive Les résidus de radioactivité dans l'alimentation Particules fines dans l’air

4. Elevé 5. Très élevé 9. Ne sait pas, pas de réponse

Maintenant, j'aimerais vous soumettre à nouveau cette liste de risques mais cette fois-ci nous vous demandons quelle confiance vous avez dans les mesures que les autorités prennent pour protéger la population contre ces risques? Vous pouvez utiliser à nouveau la même échelle. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Très faible Faible Moyen Elevé Très élevé Ne sait pas/ pas de réponse

[randomiser] 1 Les accidents de la route 2 Le tabagisme 3 La drogue 4 Le cancer 5 La pollution environnementale 6 Les déchets radioactifs 7 Les déchets chimiques 8 Un accident dans une installation chimique 9 Un accident dans une installation nucléaire 10 Les rayonnements des téléphones portables 11 Les rayonnements naturels (ex. radon ou rayonnements cosmiques) 12 Les radiographies médicales 13 Les résidus de pesticides sur les fruits et les légumes 14 Un attentat terroriste avec une source radioactive 15 Les résidus de radioactivité dans l'alimentation 16 Particules fines dans l’air

1. Très faible 2. Faible 3. Moyen 4. Elevé 5. Très élevé 9. Ne sait pas, pas de réponse

Attitude towards science and technology

119

Je vais vous citer un certain nombre de propositions relatives au rôle de la science et des technologies. Veuillez indiquer dans quelle mesure vous êtes d'accord ou en désaccord avec ces propositions. [randomiser] AX 1 Le développement de la science et des technologies génère plus de bénéfices que d'effets néfastes. AX 2 Grâce à la science et à la technologie il y aura plus de possibilités pour les générations futures. AX 3 La science et la technologie rendent nos vies plus faciles et plus confortables. AX 4 Les risques liés au progrès scientifique et technologique sont plus importants que les avantages.

1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord

[randomiser] AX 5 De nos jours, la science et la technologie sont impliquées dans tellement d'aspects que ça me complique la vie AX 6 La science et la technologie sont si difficiles à comprendre que j’ai du mal à me forger une opinion à ce sujet. AX 7 J’ai l’impression d'avoir une meilleure prise sur les choses grâce à la science et à la technologie. AX 8 Toutes ces avancées scientifiques et technologiques fulgurantes me donnent souvent l’impression d’être dépassé(e). AX 9 [filtre pour AX 10] AX10 [si AX9=non)

4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. Ne sait pas / non réponse

1. oui 2. non

Je m'intéresse à la science et aux technologies Si vous n'avez pas d'intérêt particulier pour

1. Je n'ai pas le temps

la science et les technologies, pouvez-vous

2. Je ne comprends pas

en donner la raison?

3. Je n'en ai pas besoin 4. Je n'y ai jamais pensé 5. Je n'y prête pas attention 6. Sans raison particulière

Attitude towards nuclear energy Je vais maintenant vous demander votre avis sur un certain nombre de propositions relatives à l’énergie nucléaire. Pouvez-vous nous dire de quelle manière vous êtes d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes? RT 1

De manière générale, je pense que les bénéfices de l'énergie nucléaire sont plus

1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord

120

importants que les inconvénients. RT 3

La réduction du nombre de centrales nucléaires en Europe est une bonne chose.

RT 4

Quelle est votre opinion sur l'énergie nucléaire? Je suis …

3. 4. 5. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Plus ou moins d'accord Assez d'accord Tout à fait d'accord Ne sait pas / non réponse très favorable favorable ni favorable, ni opposé opposé tout à fait opposé Ne sait pas/ non réponse

Arguments pro-against nuclear energy TIMER NE1-NE12 ON. Concernant l'énergie nucléaire en Belgique, certains aspects font l'objet d'un débat permanent. Selon vous, les facteurs suivants plaident en faveur ou contre l'énergie nucléaire? Ce facteur plaide …? [randomiser] La transparence de l'industrie nucléaire NE1 NE2 NE3 NE4 NE5 NE6 NE7 NE8 NE9

NE12

La sûreté des installations nucléaires en Belgique Les déchets nucléaires L'abus possible des technologies nucléaires par des terroristes Importante production d'énergie en un nombre limité de sites (deux en Belgique) L’énergie nucléaire nous rend dépendants des grandes multinationales L’énergie nucléaire contribue à l'indépendance énergétique de notre pays. Le coût de l’électricité produit dans les centrales nucléaires. Basses émissions de CO2 en stade de production d'électricité dans les centrales nucléaires. La fiabilité de l’énergie nucléaire générée dans les centrales nucléaires en Belgique.

1. Tout à fait contre l'énergie nucléaire 2. Contre l'énergie nucléaire 3. Ni en faveur, ni contre l'énergie nucléaire 4. En faveur de l'énergie nucléaire 5. Tout à fait en faveur de l'énergie nucléaire 9. Ne sait pas / non réponse

TIMER NE1-NE12 OFF.

Public participation in decision processes

121

Les citoyens peuvent être impliqués de différentes façons aux décisions concernant leur environnement, comme dans un panel de citoyens, une réunion à l’hôtel de ville ou à un forum sur Internet. 1. oui ST01 Avez-vous déjà participé à des initiatives 2. non visant à impliquer la population ? 9. ne sait pas / non réponse À présent, imaginez que la construction d'une installation de recherche nucléaire soit envisagée dans votre commune. 1 =Je ne souhaiterais pas ST02 S'il y' avait une initiative d'impliquer des m'impliquer. citoyens dans les décisions concernant cette 2=Je souhaiterais recevoir des installation, dans quelle mesure aimeriez-vous informations concernant cette vous impliquer ? installation. (1 SEULE REPONSE POSSIBLE) 3=Je souhaiterais recevoir des informations et donner mon avis. 4=Je souhaiterais participer à un dialogue visant un consensus. 5= Je souhaiterais être un partenaire actif dans la prise de décisions. 9= ne sait pas / non réponse ROTATION ST1. Sur une échelle de 1 à 7, dans quelle mesure pensez-vous que votre participation aux décisions concernant cette installation ST2. de recherche nucléaire [vaudrait la peine/serait utile/serait valorisante]: ST3. 9= ne sait pas / non réponse

Échelle sur 7, où: n’en vaudrait pas la peine=1 et en vaudrait la peine=7 Échelle sur 7, où: serait inutile=1 et serait utile=7 Échelle sur 7, embarrassante=1 valorisante=7

où: et

serait serait

Pouvez-vous me dire de quelle manière vous êtes d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes concernant les décisions sur l'installation de recherche nucléaire envisagée dans votre commune: ST4. La plupart des personnes qui comptent pour moi (famille, amis) m’encourageraient à 1. Pas du tout d'accord participer à ces initiatives. 2. Pas vraiment d'accord ST5. En tant que citoyen(ne), j’ai le devoir de 3. Plus ou moins d'accord participer à de telles activités. ST6. Aucune de mes connaissances ne participerait à ce type d'activité.

4. Assez d'accord

ST7. Je suis convaincu(e) qu’en participant à ces initiatives, je pourrais influencer les décisions.

9. Ne sait pas / non réponse

5. Tout à fait d'accord

ST8. Je n’ai pas assez de temps libre pour participer à ces activités.

122

ST9. Si ces activités étaient rémunérées, j’y participerais. De telles activités d'implication du public peuvent être organisées par différents acteurs. Sur une échelle de 1 à 7, dans quelle mesure aimeriez-vous participer à une initiative visant à impliquer la population dans les décisions concernant une installation nucléaire si organisée par: ST12. L’autorité de contrôle ST13. La société chargée de la gestion du projet ST14. Une organisation non-gouvernementale ST15. Un institut de recherche indépendant, p.e. une université ST16. Un groupe d’action local

Échelle sur 7, où: pas du tout=1 et beaucoup=7 9= ne sait pas / non réponse

Confidence in the management of nuclear technologies Maintenant, de façon plus générale, nous voudrions savoir si vous avez confiance dans la gestion des technologies nucléaires. Pouvez-vous nous dire de quelle manière vous êtes d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes? [randomiser] MN 1 Les réacteurs nucléaires en Belgique fonctionnent de façon sûre. 1. Pas du tout MN 2 Il n'y a pas suffisamment de contrôles de sécurité par d'accord les autorités dans les installations nucléaires en 2. Pas vraiment Belgique MN 3

Je pense que le stockage des déchets radioactifs est fait d'une manière sûre.

MN 4

Le transport d'éléments radioactifs ne se fait pas en toute sécurité.

MN 5

La production du combustible nucléaire pour les centrales nucléaires cause de dommages environnementaux

MN 6

Je me sens bien protégé contre les risques des installations nucléaires.

MN 7

Les centrales nucléaires compromettent l’avenir de nos enfants.

d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. Ne sait pas / non réponse

Actors in the nuclear field Si nous considérons maintenant le secteur de l'énergie nucléaire et ses activités, pouvez-vous nous dire : a) si vous connaissez les acteurs suivants ? 123

b) et si oui : si vous pensez qu'ils disent la vérité à propos des risques et des avantages de technologies nucléaires c) et si oui : si vous les considérez techniquement compétents dans ce domaine? Filtre: "disent la vérité" et "techniquement compétents" poser si “connaître”=oui [randomiser] NST Connaître

NSC Vérité Compétent

1. Le gouvernement 2. Les associations écologistes 3. Electrabel / GDF-Suez (l’exploitant des centrales nucléaires) 4. Les journalistes 5. AFCN (agence fédérale de contrôle nucléaire) 6. Les médecins 7. ONDRAF (l'organisme national des déchets radioactifs et des matières fissiles enrichies) 8. AIEA (l’Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique) à Vienne, Autriche 9. IRE (institut national de radioéléments), Fleurus. 10. SCK·CEN (le centre d'étude de l’énergie nucléaire) à Mol. 11. Les scientifiques universitaires 12. Le Forum nucléaire belge 13. L'armée 14. Bel V, une instance de contrôle 15. Belgoprocess, une entreprise spécialisée dans la gestion des déchets radioactifs et le démantèlement des installations nucléaires, Dessel 16. PERCO, un institut spécialisé dans la communication sur le nucléaire

Connaître: 1. Oui 2. Non Vérité & compétent: 1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

Fukushima FU 1

Avez-vous entendu parler de l’accident nucléaire de Fukushima, au Japon, suite au tremblement de terre et au tsunami?

1. oui 2. non

Si FU1=Oui

124

Nous voudrions connaître votre opinion au sujet de cet accident. Pouvez-vous nous dire de quelle manière vous êtes d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes? Ce qui s’est passé au Japon … FU 2 [si FU1=oui]

N'est pas pertinent pour la Belgique car il y'a pas des risques importants de tremblement de terre ou de tsunami

FU 3 [si FU1=oui]

Est pertinent pour la Belgique car il y'a des risques d’inondations.

FU 4 [si FU1=oui]

M’amène à m’inquiéter davantage au sujet des dangers des installations nucléaires belges.

FU 5 [si FU1=oui]

Me réconforte de savoir que nos centrales nucléaires en Belgique sont bien gérées.

FU 6 [si FU1=oui]

M’amène à penser qu'il est impossible de prédire tous les risques liés aux installations nucléaires.

FU 7 [si FU1=oui]

M'encourage à apprendre comment je pourrais me protéger en cas d'urgence nucléaire.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Pas du tout d'accord Pas vraiment d'accord Plus ou moins d'accord Assez d'accord Tout à fait d'accord Ne sais pas / non réponse

Knowledge about the nuclear domain Quel est votre avis sur les questions suivantes ?

AW 1 AW 2 AW 3

AW 4

Est-ce que une bombe sale est la même chose qu'une bombe atomique? Est-ce que l'exposition aux radiations entraîne toujours une contamination? Les déchets radioactifs sont-ils exclusivement produits par les centrales nucléaires ? Selon vous, en Belgique, quel est le pourcentage de l'énergie électrique produit par les centrales nucléaires?

1. Oui 2. Non

9. Ne sais pas / non réponse 1. Moins de 25 % 2. Entre 25 et 45 % 3. Entre 45 et 65 % 4. Plus de 65 % 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

Veuillez indiquer ci-dessous quels endroits disposent d'une centrale nucléaire: [randomiser] AW 5 Doel AW 6 Hasselt AW 7 Tihange

1. Oui 2. Non

125

AW 8 AW 9

Namur Lier

9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

Lesquels des secteurs suivants utilisent la technologie nucléaire? [randomiser] AW 10 La production d'électricité

1. Oui

AW 11

2. Non

AW 12 AW 13

Le secteur médical

9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

L'industrie alimentaire L'industrie textile

Que pensez-vous de la déclaration suivante : est-elle vraie ou fausse ? AW 14 Il existe un plan qui assure la protection de la 1. Vrai population en cas d'accident nucléaire. 2. Faux 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse Pouvez-vous répondre aux questions suivantes? ROTATION AW 15 Les déchets radioactifs sont collectés et traités

1. séparément des autres déchets 2. avec les autres déchets 9. je ne sais pas/pas de réponse

AW 16

La radioactivité peut être mesurée directement:

1. avec un équipement approprié 2. ne peut être mesurée 9. je ne sais pas/pas de réponse

AW 17

L’unité de mesure de la radioactivité est le :

1. 2. 3. 9.

Becquerel Hertz Mètre/seconde Je ne sais pas/pas de réponse

Experiences with "nuclear" Avez-vous déjà: AW 18 Visité une centrale nucléaire ou vu un réacteur de recherche? AW 19 Vécu dans un endroit proche (20 km) d'une installation nucléaire (centrale nucléaire, centre de recherche nucléaire …)? AW 20 Eu un emploi pour lequel vous avez été amené à utiliser la radioactivité (centrale nucléaire, industrie ou hôpitaux utilisant des sources radioactives, …)

1. Oui 2. Non

126

AW 21

Eu un membre de votre famille ou un ami proche qui utilise la radioactivité dans son travail.

Iodine campaign Reception of information TIMER RI1 ON. Cette année, les autorités ont organisé une campagne d’information et une distribution de comprimés d’iode. RI 1 Etiez-vous au courant de la distribution 1. Oui de comprimés d'iode? [Si RI1=non, 2. Non passez à AI1] IF 1  RI 2 9. Ne sais pas/ pas de IF 2 OR 9  AI1 réponse TIMER RI1 OFF. Nous aimerions savoir ce que vous vous souvenez de cette campagne. Est-ce que vous connaissez la bonne réponse aux questions suivantes? RI 2

Savez-vous qui a été invité à prendre ces comprimés d'iode?

1. Tout le monde en Belgique 2. Les personnes qui vivent dans un certain rayon autour d'une installation nucléaire 3. Les personnes qui travaillent avec des substances chimiques 4. Les personnes qui travaillent avec la radioactivité

RI 3

RI 4

En cas d'alarme nucléaire, les personnes doivent prendre directement des comprimés d'iode ou attendre les instructions? Où pouvez-vous vous procurer de comprimés d'iode?

9. Ne sais pas/pas de réponse 1. Attendre les instructions 2. Prendre immédiatement les comprimés d'iode en cas d'alerte. 9. Ne sais pas/pas de réponse 1. Dans la pharmacie locale 2. Dans un centre spécial près d'une installation nucléaire 3. Au près du médecin de famille 4. Auprès de l'administration communale. 9. Ne sais pas/pas de réponse

RI 5

Est-ce que ces comprimés sont gratuits ou payants?

1. Gratuits 2. Payants 9. Ne sais pas/pas de réponse

127

Selon vous, en cas d’accident nucléaire, les comprimés d’iode protègent contre: [randomiser] AW 22 Le cancer du poumon AW 23 Leucémie AW 24 Le cancer de la thyroïde AW 25 Le cancer des os AW 26 Les brûlures de la peau

1. Oui 2. Non 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

Acceptance of information from the iodine campaign [Montrer texte si RI1=2 ou 9]: Les autorités ont organisé, dans le cadre du plan d’urgence nucléaire, une distribution de comprimés d’iode pour les personnes vivant dans un certain rayon autour des installations nucléaires. [ALL] : Pouvez-vous nous dire de quelle manière vous êtes d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes ? AI 1

AI 2

AI 3

AI 4 AI 5

AI 6

AI 7

AI 8

La distribution des tablettes de comprimés d'iode est une bonne chose AFTER AI1: TIMER AI2 ON. Etes-vous d'accord avec la distribution des tablettes d'iode dans un certain rayon autour d'une installation nucléaire? AFTER AI2: TIMER AI2 OFF. TIMER AI3 ON. Les autorités assurent que les comprimés d'iode peuvent réduire les conséquences sur la santé dans le cas d'un accident nucléaire. Etes-vous d'accord? AFTER AI3: TIMER AI3 OFF. Avez-vous déjà été invité à venir chercher vos comprimés d'iode? [Si AI4=Oui] Êtes-vous allé chercher vos comprimés d'iode? Si on vous invite dans le futur à venir chercher des comprimés d'iode, les prendriez-vous pour les stocker dans votre maison? Voulez-vous avoir des comprimés d'iode à votre domicile même si vous ne vivez pas à l'intérieur du périmètre de distribution? AFTER AI7: TIMER AI8 ON. En cas d'alarme nucléaire, que feriez-vous avec les comprimés d'iode? AFTER AI8: TIMER AI8 OFF.

1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

1. Oui 2. Non

1. J'attendrais les instructions 2. Je les prendrais

128

directement en cas d'alarme 3. Je ne les prendrais pas. 4. Je déciderais au moment voulu 9. Ne sais pas/ pas de réponse. AI 9

Avez-vous ces comprimés d'iode à votre domicile?

1. Oui 2. Non 9. Ne sais pas/ pas de réponse

En cas d'un accident nucléaire, accepteriez-vous les mesures suivantes si elles étaient recommandées par les autorités ? AI 10 AI 11

De prendre des comprimés d'iode si recommandé par les autorités. De donner des comprimés stables d'iode à vos enfants si recommandé par les autorités.

1. Oui, parce qu'ils sont utiles. 2. Oui, parce que je dois. 3. Non 9. Ne sais pas/ pas de réponse.

Je voudrais maintenant vous poser quelques questions afin de recueillir votre avis sur les comprimés d’iode. Pensez-vous que: AI 12 AI 13

Les comprimés d’iode donnent un faux sentiment de sécurité. Les comprimés d’iode ne sont qu’une perte d’argent.

1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

Heuristic vs systematic information processing of the information from the iodine campaign [Si RI1=1] Pouvez-vous nous dire de quelle manière vous êtes d'accord ou pas d'accord avec les affirmations suivantes? FILTRÉ SUR RI1=1 (only for those who know about the campaign) [randomiser] SI 1 Afin d'être parfaitement informé(e) au sujet des [si comprimés d'iode, je pense qu'il est préférable de

1. Pas du tout d'accord

129

RI1=1] SI 2

SI 3 SI 4 SI 5

HI 1 HI 2

HI 3

HI 4

HI 5

recueillir le plus d'avis possible à ce sujet. J’ai analysé minutieusement les informations fournies dans le cadre de la campagne d'information sur les comprimés d'iode. Lorsque j’ai entendu parler des comprimés d’iode, j’ai essayé d’en savoir plus à ce sujet. C'était important pour moi de savoir comment utiliser les comprimés d'iode. Lorsque j’ai pris connaissance des informations sur les comprimés d’iode, je les ai examinées attentivement. Sur des sujets tels que celui-ci, je suis mon instinct. Mes expériences précédentes des problèmes de santé m’ont permis de me forger plus facilement une opinion vis-à-vis de l'utilisation des comprimés d'iode. Concernant l’utilisation de comprimés d’iode, je ferai tout simplement confiance aux experts et j’appliquerai leurs recommandations. En ce qui concerne les décisions relatives aux comprimés d'iode, je me réfère à mon entourage (famille, voisins,…). J'ai pu me faire facilement une opinion vis-à-vis de l'utilisation de comprimés d'iode, sans devoir chercher de plus amples informations à ce sujet, grâce à mes connaissances existantes.

2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. Ne sais pas / non réponse

Radioactive waste Il existe plusieurs catégories de déchets radioactifs. En simplifiant quelque peu, nous pouvons distinguer deux catégories principales. Les déchets de haute activité, qui sont des déchets qui rayonnent intensément et qui restent radioactifs très longtemps (des milliers d'années), et les déchets de faible activité, qui sont des déchets qui rayonnent moins intensément et qui deviennent inoffensifs après environ 300 ans. Les questions suivantes concernent les déchets radioactifs de haute activité. Dans le courant de l’été 2010, une consultation publique a été organisée afin de demander l'avis de la population sur la manière dont les déchets radioactifs de haute activité devraient être gérés. Des informations ont été délivrées sous la forme de 2 documents, à savoir le « Plan Déchets » et l’ « Évaluation Environnementale Stratégique ».

RW 1

Etiez-vous au courant de cette consultation publique?

1. Oui 2. Non

RW 2

[Si RW1= Oui] Avez-vous envoyé des commentaires

1. Oui

130

afin de donner votre avis ?

2. Non

RW 3

[Si RW1 = Oui et RW2 = Non] Pourquoi vous n'avez pas envoyé des commentaires ?

RW 4

Si une consultation similaire était organisée à l’avenir, participeriez-vous à cette consultation ?

1. Je n’ai pas eu le temps. 2. Je n’étais pas intéressé(e). 3. Il s'agit d'un sujet trop compliqué. 4. Cela ne me concerne pas. 5. Cette initiative n’aura pas beaucoup de poids sur la décision finale. 6. Je n'ai pas eu de commentaires 7. Autres raisons 1. Oui

RW 5

[Si RW4=Non] Pourquoi pas?

2. Non 1. Je n’ai pas de temps. 2. Je ne suis pas intéressé(e). 3. Il s'agit d'un sujet trop compliqué. 4. Cela ne me concerne pas. 5. Cette initiative n’aura pas beaucoup de poids sur la décision finale. 6. Autres raisons

TIMER RW6-RW13 ON. À l’heure actuelle, le dépôt géologique en profondeur est proposé pour la gestion à long terme des déchets radioactifs de haute activité. Cette option consiste à conditionner puis à enfouir définitivement les déchets à quelques centaines de mètres de profondeur dans une construction prévue à cet effet et se trouvant dans une couche d'argile. Lorsque le dépôt est plein, il est scellée pour raisons de sécurité et de sureté, afin d’empêcher tout accès à cette dernière. Veuillez indiquer dans quelle mesure vous êtes d’accord ou n’êtes pas d’accord avec les déclarations suivantes concernant le dépôt géologique des déchets radioactifs de haute activité: RW 6 RW 7

RW 8

RW 9

Le dépôt géologique résout le problème des déchets radioactifs de haute activité. Le dépôt géologique n’est pas une option acceptable de gestion des déchets radioactifs de haute activité. Les futures générations doivent pouvoir avoir accès au site de dépôt géologique, même si cela met en péril la sureté et la sécurité. Si le dépôt géologique est choisi pour gérer les déchets radioactifs de haute activité, que pensezvous de la poursuite du développement de l'énergie nucléaire ? Je suis …

1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Ne sais pas / non réponse très favorable favorable ni favorable, ni opposé opposé tout à fait opposé Ne sais pas/ non réponse

131

Veuillez répondre à la question suivante : RW 10

Si la construction d’un site dépôt souterrain pour déchets radioactifs de haute activité était envisagée près de chez vous, avec laquelle des déclarations suivantes seriez-vous le plus d'accord? (1 SEULE RÉPONSE POSSIBLE)

1=Je ne souhaiterais pas m’impliquer. 2=Je souhaiterais recevoir des informations concernant cette site de stockage. 3=Je souhaiterais recevoir des informations et donner mon avis. 5= Je souhaiterais participer aux décisions. 6 = Je n’accepterais jamais la construction d’un site de stockage à proximité de mon domicile et je protesterais contre ce projet.

J’aimerais maintenant vous poser quelques dernières questions générales sur la gestion des déchets nucléaires de haute activité : RW 11 Ce sont les générations qui ont utilisé l'énergie nucléaire qui devraient endosser la responsabilité de la gestion des déchets engendrés et non les générations futures. RW 12 Puisque les déchets radioactifs resteront dangereux pour de nombreuses générations, les générations futures doivent être capables de prendre les décisions relatives. RW 13 Comme il n'y a pas encore de bonne solution pour les déchets radioactifs, leur gestion à long terme devrait être laissée aux futures générations. TIMER RW6-RW13 OFF.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9.

Pas d'accord du tout. Pas d'accord. Plus ou moins d'accord. Assez d'accord. Complètement d'accord. Ne sais pas/pas de réponse.

META Donnez-nous votre opinion sur cette recherche. MET 1 Ce questionnaire était intéressant et me fait réfléchir. MET 2 Pour pouvoir répondre correctement à des questions portant sur des sujets aussi compliqués, j’aurais besoin de plus amples informations. MET 3 Les réponses proposées me semblent limitées.

1. Pas du tout d'accord 2. Pas vraiment d'accord 3. Plus ou moins d'accord 4. Assez d'accord 5. Tout à fait d'accord

Interviewer's opinion about the interview (Indiquer, NE PAS demander au répondant) INT1

Note de l'interviewer sur la personne interrogée: qu'est-ce qui décrit le mieux l'attitude de la personne

1. Intéressé(e) 2. Ennuyé(e)

132

interrogée?

3. Engagé(e) 4. Embrouillé(e)

Merci de votre participation et je vous souhaite encore une bonne journée.

133

Technical annex from ASK- Market Probe

Market Probe

Onderzoek naar risicoperceptie Technisch dossier

8 juli 2011

Veldkant 37 - 2550 Kontich - Belgium Phone 32–3–451.00.45 www.marketprobe.com Dominique Vanmarsenille

134

1. ACHTERGROND EN ONDERZOEKSDOELSTELLINGEN Het studiecentrum voor Kernenergie (SCK.CEN) voert sedert 2002 opinie-onderzoek uit naar risicoperceptie in België. In 2002 werd een eerste risico-onderzoek uitgevoerd, opgevolgd door een tweede editie in 2006 en een derde editie in 2009. Dit technisch rapport verwijst naar de vierde meting in 2011. Hierbij ging de aandacht uit naar de perceptie van een aantal risico’s bij de bevolking in het algemeen, de standpunten, kennis en ervaringen in verband met nucleaire energie, de kernramp in Fukushima, radioactief afval en de verdeling van jodiumtabletten. Daarenboven wordt het socio-demografisch en psychografisch profiel van de bevolking geschetst. Nieuw in 2011 is de uitvoering van een longitudinaal onderzoek bij 100 à 200 respondenten die in de editie van 2009 aangaven dat ze in de toekomst nog graag vragen wilden beantwoorden ivm dit onderwerp. Zij kregen een ingekorte versie van de vragenlijst van 2011, met grotendeels identieke vragen uit de vragenlijst van 2009 om een vergelijking in de tijd mogelijk te maken.

135

2.ONDERZOEKSPLAN 2.1.UNIVERSUM Het onderzoek richt zich tot de in België residerende bevolking van 18 jaar en ouder. Deze populatie bestaat uit 8.549.700 individuen en kan perfect beschreven worden op basis van de klassieke socio-demografische en –economische variabelen. Tabel 1

UNIVERSUM in duizendtallen

Totaal Geslacht

Leeftijd

Provincie

VLAAN DEREN

BRUSSEL 19

WALLONIE

8.549,7

4.986,4

834,4

2.728,9

Mannen

4.146

2.443

395

1.307

Vrouwen

4.404

2.543

439

1.422

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

834

2.729

18-24

916

510

95

311

25-34

1.381

768

190

423

35-44

1.559

899

165

495

45-54

1.564

935

127

502

55-64

1.297

768

99

430

65+

1.834

1.107

159

568

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

834

2.729

West Vlaanderen

933

933

Oost Vlaanderen

1.147

1.147

Antwerpen

1.388

1.388

Limburg

675

675

Vlaams Brabant

844

844

Brussel 19

834

Brabant Wallon

834

294

294

1.024

1.024

Namur

370

370

Luxembourg

209

209

Hainaut

Liège

Habitat

TOTAAL

832

832

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

834

2.729

5 grote steden (Brussel, Antwerpen, Gent, Charleroi, Liège)

2.502

1.020

834

647

43 steden

1.856

1.229

628

Kleine localiteiten

2.017

1.374

643

Landelijk

2.175

1.364

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

812 834

2.729

136

Tabel 1

UNIVERSUM in duizendtallen

Opleiding

Lager of geen

BRUSSEL 19

WALLONIE

593

110

399

Algemeen - lager

660

313

109

239

Algemeen - hoger

1.051

580

140

331

Technisch/beroeps - lager

1.004

608

63

333

Technisch - hoger

1.106

714

42

350

994

617

93

284

Hoger - Niet universitair en universitair

2.632

1.561

277

794

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

834

2.729

hoger kader

299

152

29

117

middenkader

508

294

31

182

ambachtsman, kleinhandelaar, landbouwer

366

186

34

146

bediende

2.060

1,210

195

655

arbeider

1.484

858

112

513

huisvrouw

488

348

107

33

2.221

1,280

173

769

werkloos en andere zonder activiteit

767

388

80

298

student

358

270

73

15

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

834

2.729

Actief

4.715

2.701

401

1.614

Niet-actief

3.834

2.286

434

1.115

SUBTOTAAL

8.550

4.986

834

2.729

1+2

2.231

1.327

266

637

3+4

1.887

1.103

156

629

5+6

2.179

1.303

189

687

7+8

2.195

1.217

222

757

SUBTOTAAL

8.492

4.950

833

2.709

gepensioneerd

Sociale klasse

VLAAN DEREN

1.102

Beroeps - hoger

Beroep

TOTAAL

137

2.2.STEEKPROEF De vooropgestelde steekproef bedroeg 1.000 respondenten, aangevuld met 100 à 200 interviews voor het longitudinaal onderzoek. De finaal behaalde steekproef bedroeg 1.020 respondenten (exclusief het longitudinaal onderzoek), als volgt verdeeld: Tabel 2

QUOTA quotacellen in het geel

Geslacht

Mannen Vrouwen

1.020 507 513 1.020

18-24

107

126

25-34

161

148

35-44

182

189

45-54

183

196

55-64

152

179

65+

214

182

1.000

1.020

18-34

269

274

35-54

365

385

55+

366

361

SUBTOTAAL

Regio

485 515

SUBTOTAAL

Provincie

1.000

1.000

SUBTOTAAL Leeftijd

BEHAALD

1.000

1.020

West Vlaanderen

109

115

Oost Vlaanderen

134

136

Antwerpen

162

161

Limburg

79

79

Vlaams Brabant

99

101

Brussel 19

98

102

Brabant Wallon

34

36

Hainaut

120

130

Namur

43

40

Luxembourg

24

27

Liège

97

93

SUBTOTAAL

1.000

1.020

Vlaanderen

583

592

98

102

Brussel Walllonië SUBTOTAAL

319

326

1.000

1.020

138

Tabel 2

Habitat

QUOTA quotacellen in het geel 5 grote steden (Brussel, Antwerpen, Gent, Charleroi, Liège)

304

217

217

Kleine localiteiten

236

236

Landelijk

254

263

1.000

1.020

129

77

Lager of geen Algemeen - lager

77

86

Algemeen - hoger

123

203

Technisch/beroeps - lager

117

107

Technisch - hoger

129

102

Beroeps - hoger

116

147

308

298

SUBTOTAAL

1.000

1.020

hoger kader

35

5

middenkader

59

22

ambachtsman, kleinhandelaar, landbouwer

43

97

bediende

241

285

arbeider

174

155

57

48

260

199

90

122

huisvrouw gepensioneerd werkloos en andere zonder activiteit student

42

87

1.000

1.020

Actief

552

564

Niet-actief

448

456

SUBTOTAAL

SUBTOTAAL Sociale klasse

1.020

293

Hoger - Niet universitair en universitair Beroep

1.000

43 steden

SUBTOTAAL Opleiding

BEHAALD

1.000

1.020

1+2

263

275

3+4

222

228

5+6

257

294

7+8 SUBTOTAAL

258

223

1.000

1.020

De participatiegraad voor het onderzoek lag op 63% (605 weigeringen ten opzichte van 1020 afgewerkte interviews). Voor het longitudinaal onderzoek was het de bedoeling om 100 à 200 respondenten te bevragen. Uiteindelijk behaalden we 101 afgewerkte interviews op 266 contacten. 69 personen weigerden mee te werken, 96 waren niet meer contaceerbaar wegens verhuisd of niet aanwezig.

139

Bij 95% betrouwbaarheid waarborgt deze steekproefgrootte navolgende maximale statistische fout (op basis van een t-test): Tabel 2

geobserveerde frequentie (%) 1 of 99

n

2 of 98

3 of 97

4 of 96

5 of 95

10 of 90

15 of 85

20 of 80

25 of 75

30 of 70

35 of 65

40 of 60

45 of 55

50

50

2.8

3.9

4.7

5.4

6.0

8.3

9.9

11.1

12.0

12.7

13.2

13.6

13.8

13.9

100

2.0

2.7

3.8

3.8

4.3

5.9

7.0

7.8

8.5

9.0

9.3

9.6

9.8

9.8

200

1.4

1.9

2.4

2.7

3.0

4.2

5.0

5.6

6.0

6.4

6.6

6.8

6.9

6.9

300

1.1

1.6

1.9

2.2

2.5

3.4

4.0

4.5

4.9

5.2

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

400

1.0

1.4

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.9

3.5

3.9

4.2

4.5

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.9

500

0.8

1.2

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.6

3.1

3.5

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.4

600

0.8

1.1

1.4

1.6

1.7

2.4

2.9

3.2

3.5

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.0

700

0.7

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.6

2.2

2.6

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.7

800

0.7

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.5

2.1

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.4

3.5

900

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.4

2.0

2.3

2.6

2.8

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.3

1.000

0.6

0.9

1.1

1.2

1.4

1.9

2.2

2.5

2.7

2.8

3.0

3.0

3.1

3.1

Voor de steekproeftrekking ging Market Probe als volgt te werk: 1 Voorafgaande stratifikatie naar provincie en urbanisatiegraad In België onderscheidt men: 11 provincie-strata de 10 provincies en Brussel; en 4 urbanisatie-strata grote steden, stedelijke gemeenten, secundaire gemeenten en landelijke gemeenten. De kruising van beide variabelen levert ons 37 cellen op. 2 Lukrake trekking van de steekproefgemeenten In elkeen van de hierboven gedefinieerde cellen wordt vervolgens een aantal gemeenten aselect getrokken à rato van minimum of een veelvoud van 5 interviews en dit in functie van het aantal inwoners in de gemeente. Grotere gemeenten krijgen aldus een groter aantal interviews toegewezen. 3 Quota-steekproeftrekking van de individuen Voor elke geselecteerde gemeente worden quota opgelegd inzake geslacht (mannen versus vrouwen), leeftijd (3 categorieën), beroepsactiviteit (ja versus neen) en sociale klasse (met een controle voor de hogere sociale klassen die riskeren ondervertegenwoordigd te worden door een hogere non-response). Deze variabelen werden in een gele kleur aangeduid in tabel 3. Het aantal invalspunten dat Market Probe trok voor dit onderzoek bedroeg 59 in Vlaanderen, 9 in Brussel en 37 in Wallonië, i.e. 105 in totaal. Tijdens het veldwerk werd de quota-opvulling op dagdagelijkse basis gecontroleerd en werd bijgestuurd waar nodig.

140

2.3. RESPONDENTEN Het interview richtte zich tot een lukraak geïdentificeerd persoon in het gezin van 18 jaar en ouder. Standaard weert Market Probe respondenten die in de afgelopen 6 maanden deel genomen hebben aan een marktonderzoek, alsook verwanten van de ingeschakelde interviewers.

2.4. VRAGENLIJST De opdrachtgever leverde de finale vragenlijst aan in de betrokken talen. De gemiddelde interviewduur bedroeg 55,0 minuten. Voor het longitudinaal onderzoek was dit gemiddeld 10,7 minuten. Hierna volgen de gebruikte vragenlijsten: eerst de vragenlijsten van de quota-steekproef, daarna de longitudinale vragenlijsten.

2.5. GEGEVENSVERZAMELING De interviews werden face to face afgenomen bij de respondenten thuis na eventuele voorafgaandelijke afspraakname. Hierbij werd gebruik gemaakt van capi-technologie. De interviews werden afgenomen in het Nederlands en Frans. De Nederlandstalige equipe stond in voor de interviews bij Vlaamstaligen terwijl Franstalige respondenten ondervraagd werden door Franstalige interviewers. Voor dit onderzoek werden in totaal 73 interviewers ingeschakeld. Het betrof professionele interviewers die dit vak uitoefenen in hoofdberoep als zelfstandigen. Na de controles op het veldwerk achteraf werden de resultaten van 1 interviewer niet meegenomen, zodat uiteindelijk 72 interviewers effectief werden gebruikt. De interviewers werden uitgenodigd op een centraal georganiseerde mondelinge briefing, waarin de doelstellingen van het onderzoek, de te hanteren vragenlijst, eventuele specifieke interviewtechnieken en het eventuele toonmateriaal toegelicht werden. De opdrachtgever werd op de briefing vertegenwoordigd door Tanja Perko die zich bezighoudt met het wetenschappelijk onderzoek aan de Universiteit van Antwerpen. Daarnaast bereidde Market Probe ook nog schriftelijke instructies voor. Wij hernemen de schriftelijke briefing hierna in beide landstalen. De interviewers konden ook altijd telefonisch terecht bij de field supervisors voor nadere uitleg. De respondenten kregen een kleine incentive ter bedanking voor hun deelname aan het onderzoek. De opdrachtgever werd op regelmatige tijdstippen op de hoogte gebracht van de vorderingen van het veldwerk.

141

Instructions for interviewers - Nederlandse versie Opdrachtgever:  Studiecentrum voor kernenergie – Centre d’étude de l’énergie nucléaire  Het is aangewezen de opdrachtgever niet vrij te geven. U kan steeds verwijzen naar een federale instantie die een onderzoek doen aangaande risico’s in de Belgische samenleving. Respondent:  Het onderzoek richt zich tot een willekeurig gekozen persoon in het gezin van 18 jaar en ouder  Opgelet: quota’s respecteren. Introductie van de interviewer : Dag mijnheer/mevrouw, Ik ben ... van het onderzoeksbureau Market Probe. Wij doen een studie in verband met risico’s in de Belgische maatschappij. Kan ik u hierover enkele vragen stellen? Het interview zal ongeveer 30 minuten (lange vragenlijst)/10 minuten (longitudinale vragenlijst) duren. De resultaten worden enkel gebruikt voor wetenschappelijke doeleinden. Wij garanderen de volledige anonimiteit van uw gegevens. Onderzoek:  Belgisch onderzoek (n=1000 – lange vragenlijst) vs. Longitudinaal onderzoek (n=200 – korte vragenlijst op basis van mensen die nog eens wilden meewerken volgende keer)   



30-tal minuten (Belgisch onderzoek) vs 10-tal minuten (Longitudinaal onderzoek) Gestructureerde vragenlijst – veel itembatterijen Voor de itembatterijen is het nuttig dat de respondent naast de interviewer plaatsneemt want de items worden soms gerandomiseerd/geroteerd. De respondent mag sowieso altijd meekijken op het scherm, omdat er geen spontane vragen inzitten. Enkel vanaf de laatste vraag ivm de houding van de respondent tijdens het interview de respondent niet meer laten meekijken en dit zelf aanduiden! Een 14-tal kleine hoofdstukken worden behandeld: 1. Socio-demografisch profiel 2. Algemene risico’s waarmee de doorsnee Belg mee af te rekenen kan krijgen en het vertrouwen in de maatregelen van de overheid om de bevolking tegen deze risico’s te beschermen 3. Houding ten opzichte van wetenschap en technologie 4. Standpunten in verband met nucleaire energie 5. Argumenten voor en contra nucleaire energie 6. Deelname van het grote publiek bij de besluitvorming omtrent nuclaire energie 7. Vertrouwen in het huidige beheer van nucleaire energie 8. Actoren binnen het domein van kernenergie en nucleaire activiteiten: kent u ze? Vertellen ze de waarheid? Beschouwt u ze als technisch bekwaam? 9. Fukushima 10. Kennis ivm nucleaire energie 11. Ervaringen met nucleaire energie 12. Jodiumcampagne 13. Radioactief afval 14. Algemene vragen over de vragenlijst zelf

Specifieke opmerkingen:  De weigeringen om mee te werken moeten bijgehouden worden, dus telkens er iemand opendoet en weigert mee te werken moet dit aangeduid worden.

142





Mbt Vraag “Actoren binnen het domein van kernenergie en nucleaire activiteiten: kent u ze?” Bij de kennisvraag wordt bijvoorbeeld ook gevraagd naar het feit of de respondent “de regering”, “de journalisten”, “de geneesheren”, “het leger”. Het is vanzelfsprekend dat de respondent hierop “ja” antwoordt. Mocht hij toch “nee” zeggen, check dan toch nog eens even of de respondent deze echt niet kent! Proberen om zoveel mogelijk “weet niet” te vermijden. Enkel aanduiden als de respondent echt geen idee heeft.

Instructions for interviewers - Franse versie Commanditaire :  Centre d’étude de l’énergie nucléaire (SCK-CEN).  Il est préférable de ne pas dévoiler le nom du commanditaire. Au besoin, vous pouvez évoquer une instance fédérale menant une étude relative aux risques dans la société belge. Répondant :  Cette enquête s’adresse à n’importe quel membre du ménage âgé d’au moins 18 ans.  Attention : respecter les quotas. Introduction de l’interviewer : Bonjour monsieur/madame, Je suis ... du bureau d’étude Market Probe. Nous faisons une étude relative aux risques dans la société belge. Est-ce que je peux vous poser quelques questions ? L’interview durera environ 30 minutes (questionnaire long)/10 minutes (questionnaire longitudinal). Les résultats seront utilisés pour des buts scientifiques. Nous vous garantissons l’anonymat de vos données. Enquête :  Etude Belgique (n=1000 – questionnaire long) vs. Etude longitudinal (n=200 – questionnaire court basé sur les répondants de 2009 qui ont indiqué qu’ils voulaient participer de nouveau une prochaine fois)   



Environ 30 minutes (étude Belgique) vs environ 10 minutes (étude longitudinal). Questionnaire structuré – nombreuses batteries d’attributs. Pour les batteries d’attributs, il est préférable que le répondant s’installe à côté de l’enquêteur car les attributs seront présentés de manière aléatoire. En tout cas, le répondant peut regarder l’écran pour toutes les questions, car il n’y a pas de questions spontanées. Seulement quand la dernière question sur l’attitude du répondant durant l’interview apparaît le répondant ne peut plus voir ce que l’enquêteur indique ! 14 petits thèmes abordés: 1. Profil sociodémographique 2. Risque auquel le Belge moyen peut être exposé et confiance quant aux mesures prises par les pouvoirs publics pour protéger la population contre ces risques 3. Attitude vis-à-vis la science et la technologie 4. Avis en ce qui concerne l'énergie nucléaire 5. Arguments pro et contre l'énergie nucléaire 6. Participation du grand public à prendre des décisions sur le secteur de l’énergie nucléaire 7. La confiance dans la gestion actuelle de l’énergie nucléaire 8. Acteurs dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire et des activités nucléaires: les connaissez-vous ? Disent-ils la vérité ? Les considérez-vous techniquement capable ? 9. Fukushima 10. Connaissance de l'énergie nucléaire 11. Expériences avec l’énergie nucléaire

143

12. Campagne de l’iode 13. Les déchets radioactifs 14. Questions générales sur le questionnaire lui-même Remarques spécifiques:  Il faut noter le nombre des gens qui refusent à participer, donc chaque fois que quelqu’un ouvre la porte et ne veut pas participer, il faut l’indiquer.  Pour la question “Acteurs dans le domaine de l'énergie nucléaire et des activités nucléaires: les connaissez-vous?” on demande p.e. aussi si le répondant connaît “le gouvernement”, “les journalistes”, “les médecins”, “l’armée”. Il va de soi que le répondant dit “oui”. Si le répondant dirait “non”, il faut de nouveau demander s’il ne le vraiment connaît pas pour être sûr! Il faut éviter “ne sait pas/non réponse” autant que possible. Uniquement dans les questions que le répondant n’a aucune idée, on peut l’utiliser.

GEGEVENSVERWERKING EN RAPPORTAGE Market Probe heeft navolgende output geleverd aan de opdrachtgever:  2 spss-bestanden met de onderzoeksdata (quotasteekproef en longitudinaal onderzoek (incl. resultaten 2009))  Een excelbestand met de contactgegevens van de personen van het longitudinaal onderzoek die willen meewerken aan een vervolg van het onderzoek.  Onderhavig technisch dossier.

3.KWALITEITSZORG In totaal werden 120 interviews gecontroleerd. De controles gebeurden telefonisch tussen 6 en 29 juni 2011. Hiervoor werd navolgende vragenlijst gebruikt: STUDIE : Risicobarometer ENQUETEUR : ……………………………………….. VRAGENLIJST :……………………………………… DRAAI HET NUMMER : …………………………………………. 1: antwoord 2: geen antwoord 3: bezet 4: geen telefoonnummer op de vragenlijst 5: bestaat niet 6: niet te bereiken 7: antwoordapparaat/ langdurige afwezigheid 8: antwoordapparaat/ terug te bellen 9: fax/ modem 10: taalprobleem Goeiedag mevrouw/ mijnheer, mijn naam is ……. van Market Probe. Zou ik met …………(zie naam van de O.P. op de vragenlijst) kunnen spreken ? 1: u spreekt met de goede persoon 144

2: u wordt doorverbonden met deze persoon 3: iemand antwoordt in de plaats van de OP 4: niet beschikbaar- later terugbellen (afspraak) 5: niet beschikbaar- later niet terugbellen (geen afspraak) 6: de OP is er niet en niemand kan in zijn/ haar naam antwoorden 7: taalprobleem 8: weigering In het kader van een kwaliteitscontrole van het werk van onze enquêteurs, zou ik u een paar vragen willen stellen. Om te beginnen: 1. Herinnert u zich onlangs te hebben deelgenomen aan een enquête ? □ JA □ NEEN

ga naar V2 ga naar V2 « NEEN » (noem de onderwerpen opnieuw)

2. Herinnert u zich waarover die enquête ging? □ JA Herinnert u zich nog waar de enquête over ging? Welke onderwerpen? ………………………………………………………………. □ NEEN Herinnert u zich deelgenomen te hebben aan een studie over kernenergie? □ JA ga naar V3 □ NEEN check de coördinaten van de OP (naam, adres, tel) STOP Coördinaten OK Foute coördinaten, de juiste zijn: …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3. Werden er vragen gesteld over uw standpunten in verband met nucleaire energie? □ JA □ NEEN

ga naar V4 ga naar v4

4. Werd er iets gevraagd over het kernongeval in Fukushima na de plaatselijke aardbeving en tsunami? □ JA □ NEEN

ga naar V5 ga naar V5

5. Werden er vragen gesteld over radioactief afval en de verdeling van jodiumtabletten? □ JA □ NEEN

ga naar V6 ga naar V6

6. Hoe werd u ondervraagd ? 1: op papier 2: op computer 3: per telefoon 4: u heeft de vragenlijst zelf ingevuld 5 : andere :………………………………………….. 7. Hoelang heeft die enquête ongeveer geduurd? In minuten uitgedrukt

145

………………… minuten 8. Hoe oud bent u? ………………….jaar 11a. Heeft u in de loop van de 4 laatste maanden vaker meegedaan aan een enquête? □ JA □ NEEN

ga naar V 11 B ga naar EINDE

11b. Aan hoeveel enquêtes heeft u deelgenomen tijdens de laatste 4 maanden (met uitzondering van de enquête waarover we het nu hebben)? …………..enquêtes EINDE : Dank u voor uw medewerking en nog een prettige avond verder!

Hierna volgt het resultaat van de controles:

146

147

Na controle bleek dat 4 interviews van een bepaalde interviewer niet conform de vooropgestelde voorwaarden werden uitgevoerd. Daarom heeft Market Probe besloten om al de 10 interviews van de betreffende interviewer niet mee op te nemen in de uiteindelijke resultaten, zodat we 1020 interviews overhouden in plaats van 1030 voor het quota-onderzoek.

148

4. SAMENWERKING MET MARKET PROBE Voor dit project werd navolgend onderzoeksteam samengesteld: 

Dominique Vanmarsenille



Mark Koks



Jan Godts



Ghislain Ancion



Nico Bogaerts

Country Manager bij Market Probe en economist van opleiding. Dominique was het aanspreekpunt inzake opzet van het onderzoek. Senior Research Manager bij Market Probe en handelsingenieur van opleiding. Mark stond in voor de dagdagelijkse begeleiding van het project. EDP-Manager bij Market Probe. Jan stond in voor de controle van de bestanden en het opmaken van het te leveren bestand. EDP-Consultant die instond voor de programmatie van de capivragenlijst. Field Director bij ID (onze face to face veldwerkpartner) die instond voor de supervisie van de gegevensverzameling

5. UITVOERINGSTERMIJNEN Onderhavig project werd binnen navolgende tijdspanne afgewerkt: 19/05/11  Bestelling 23/05/11  Briefing 25/05/11  Start van het veldwerk 06/06/11  Begin controles veldwerk 24/06/11  Einde van het veldwerk 29/06/11  Einde controles veldwerk 08/07/11  Levering van gegevensbestanden

6. BIJHOUDEN VAN INFORMATIE Market Probe zal alle documenten (onderzoeksdossier, vragenlijsten, ingevulde vragenlijsten, briefing instructies, steekproefinformatie, gedurende 1 jaar bewaren te rekenen vanaf de levering van de resultaten. De gegevensbestanden met onderzoeksresultaten die voor onderhavig onderzoek opgebouwd werden, worden gedurende een periode van 2 jaar door Market Probe bewaard. Na deze periode heeft Market Probe het recht om ze te vernietigen.

7. VERTROUWELIJKHEID Market Probe engageert zich om de briefing- en onderzoeksgegevens vertrouwelijk te behandelen en niet door te geven aan derden zonder uitdrukkelijke toestemming van opdrachtgever. De opdrachtgever engageert zich om onderhavig onderzoeksvoorstel vertrouwelijk te behandelen en niet aan derden door te geven zonder uitdrukkelijke toestemming van Market Probe.

149

Market Probe draagt er zorg voor dat geen enkele vragenlijst waarin een respondent zou kunnen geïdentificeerd worden, alsook geen enkel ander registratiedocument dat de naam van een respondent vermeldt, aan de opdrachtgever of aan een derde doorgegeven wordt, behalve als een uitdrukkelijk geschreven toestemming werd verkregen van de respondent en uitsluitend voor onderhavige onderzoeksdoelstellingen. Market Probe zorgt ervoor dat geen enkel document dat identificeerbare persoonlijke gegevens van de respondenten bevat langer wordt bewaard dan nodig voor de controle van het veldwerk en daarmee samenhangende proefnemingen voor kwaliteitscontrole en het eventueel opnieuw afnemen van bepaalde interviews.

150

SOCIALE KLASSE op basis van de activiteit van de voornaamste verantwoordelijke van het gezinsinkomen 1

B.

C.

D.

3,5

6

7

8

9

Onderwijsniveau van de V.V.I. Secundair Secundair algemeen algemeen technisch technisch Secundair Secundair Lager artistiek artistiek beroeps beroeps Hoger nietonderwijs LAGER HOGER LAGER HOGER universitair Universitair

Beroep van de V.V.I.

A.

2,4

ZELFSTANDIGEN - Kleine landbouwer - Grote landbouwer - Ambachtsman, handelaar (- 5 werknemers) - Ambachtsman, handelaar (6+ werknemers) -Vrije beroepen

1 2 3 4 5

7 7 7 6 6

8 8 7 7 7

6 6 5 5 5

7 7 6 6 6

5 5 3 3 2

6 6 5 4 4

6 6 5 5 5

7 7 6 6 6

5 4 3 2 2

6 5 4 3 3

3 3 1 1 1

5 4 3 2 2

3 2 1 1 1

5 4 2 2 2

BEDIENDEN - Hoger kader (5- werknemers) - Hoger kader (6 - 10 werknemers) - Hoger kader (11+ werknemers) - Middenkader (5- werknemers) - Middenkader (6+ werknemers) - Andere kantoorwerk - Andere geen kantoorwerk

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

7 6 6 7 7 7 7

7 7 7 7 7 7 7

5 5 5 5 5 6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

3 3 2 3 3 4 4

5 4 4 5 5 5 5

5 5 5 5 5 6 6

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

2 2 2 3 3 3 3

4 3 3 4 4 5 5

1 1 1 1 1 2 2

3 2 2 3 3 3 3

1 1 1 1 1 2 2

2 2 2 3 3 3 3

ARBEIDERS - Geschoolde arbeiders - Ongeschoolde arbeiders

13 14

7 8

8 8

6 7

7 7

5 6

6 7

6 7

7 7

4 6

5 6

3 5

4 6

2 5

4 6

15,17 18 20

8 8 7

8 8 8

8 8 6

8 8 7

7 7 5

8 8 6

8 8 6

8 8 7

7 7 4

7 7 5

6 6 3

7 7 4

6 6 2

7 7 4

INAKTIEVEN - Student / invalide - Huisvrouw - Rentenier

De codes die in het rood staan, dienen gebruikt te worden indien de V.V.I gepensioneerd of werkloos is (inactief),

151

152