1. By-Covid
  2. All content
  3. Cessda
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/65011
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.creatorPidgeon, N., University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences, Centre for Environmental Risken
dc.creatorPoortinga, W., University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences, Centre for Environmental Risken
dc.date2003-09-10T00:00:00Zen
dc.identifier4707-
dc.identifier10.5255/UKDA-SN-4707-1-
dc.identifierhttp://doi.org/10.5255/UKDA-SN-4707-1-
dc.identifier.urihttps://t2-4.bsc.es/jspui/handle/123456789/65011*
dc.description<P>Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.</P>en
dc.descriptionThis study investigated public attitudes towards science, risk and forms of governance. The centrepiece was a major quantitative survey conducted with ESRC support, and linked to the <i>Programme on Understanding Risk</i>, a major research programme (2001-2005) supported by the Leverhulme Trust. The quantitative survey covered five core issues selected by the programme for detailed investigation, namely: climate change; radiation from mobile phones; radioactive waste; genetically modified food; and genetic testing. These cases were chosen, as all are prominent within UK society, and have complementary as well as contrasting facets. Each issue contains, among others, the following elements: they all relate to scientific knowledge, public trust in science and scientific procedures, interrelationships with business, civil society and government, and matters of democratic choice, freewill and tolerance of collective decisions; they all test governmental competence as well as scientific authority, especially when scientific interpretations clash with wider values such as free choice, democratic accountability and the role of business and civil society in changing patterns of governance; they are all themes that are covered by various surveys of public opinion, but where a richer set of contextually referenced and comparative data is lacking. <br> <br> The study is designed to provide theoretical progress and integration in the field of risk perception and representation, facilitating advances in our theoretical understanding of public framings and attitudes towards science and risk issues. It is also intended to provide scientists and policy makers with an understanding of how the public views and characterises science and scientific procedures in settings where risk and policy interact.<br> <br> A later survey by the same research team, the 'UEA-MORI Genetically-modified (GM) Food Survey, 2003' uses questions on GM foods from this study, and is held at the UK Data Archive under SN:5027.en
dc.description<B>Main Topics</B>:<BR>en
dc.descriptionThe quantitative survey was administered in Great Britain with a national quota sample of 1547 people aged 15 years and older interviewed face-to-face in their own homes. The interviews took on average about thirty minutes to complete. The total sample comprised five separate quota samples of about 300 respondents, each of which was given a different version of the questionnaire covering one of the five risk cases. A maximum of one interview per address was conducted. <br> <br> The questionnaire was subdivided into three main sections. The first <i>general section</i> was about general issues, and was common to all respondents. This section consisted of questions on cultural values, worldview, science in society, and on the importance of various personal and social issues. The second <i>risk specific section</i> presented the respondents with a set of standardised questions on only one of the five risk issues listed above. Each of the five separate quota samples was given one of the five risk versions. Questions in this section were aimed at, among others, measuring perceived risk characteristics, attitudes to risk regulation, social influence, trust, concern and acceptability of the five risk cases. The questionnaire was concluded with a section in which respondents were asked to provide <i>background information</i>, and was again common to all respondents. This final section not only had the usual socio-demographics such as gender, age, income and level of education, but also a range of questions on social and political exclusion. <br> <br> Standard Measures <br> The revised New Environmental Paradigm was used (Dunlap and Van Liere, 1978; Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig and Jones, 2000).<br>en
dc.languageen-
dc.rightsCopyright is held jointly between the University of East Anglia Centre for Environmental Risk and MORI.en
dc.subjectAGEen
dc.subjectGENDERen
dc.subjectECONOMIC ACTIVITYen
dc.subjectSOCIAL CLASSen
dc.subjectTELEPHONESen
dc.subjectINCOMEen
dc.subjectETHNIC GROUPSen
dc.subjectNEWSPAPER READERSHIPen
dc.subjectMARITAL STATUSen
dc.subjectHOUSEHOLDSen
dc.subjectCHILDRENen
dc.subjectADULTSen
dc.subjectVEHICLESen
dc.subjectCLIMATE CHANGEen
dc.subjectRADIOACTIVE WASTESen
dc.subjectMOBILE PHONESen
dc.subjectRADIATIONen
dc.subjectGENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODen
dc.subjectGENETIC SCREENINGen
dc.subjectVOTING INTENTIONen
dc.subjectVOTINGen
dc.subjectSOCIAL ISSUESen
dc.subjectCOMMUNITIESen
dc.subjectVOLUNTARY WORKen
dc.subjectCOMMUNICATIONSen
dc.subjectFAMILIESen
dc.subjectFRIENDSen
dc.subjectNEIGHBOURSen
dc.subjectANIMAL RIGHTSen
dc.subjectEDUCATIONen
dc.subjectSOCIAL ATTITUDESen
dc.subjectENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATIONen
dc.subjectEXCITEMENTen
dc.subjectQUALITY OF LIFEen
dc.subjectBASIC NEEDSen
dc.subjectHEALTHen
dc.subjectLAW ENFORCEMENTen
dc.subjectFINANCEen
dc.subjectPOPULATION INCREASEen
dc.subjectRELIGIONen
dc.subjectHUMAN RIGHTSen
dc.subjectPOVERTYen
dc.subjectTERRORISMen
dc.subjectEMPLOYMENTen
dc.subjectACHIEVEMENTen
dc.subjectCUSTOMS AND TRADITIONSen
dc.subjectECONOMIC GROWTHen
dc.subjectSOCIAL SYSTEMSen
dc.subjectCULTUREen
dc.subjectCONSUMPTIONen
dc.subjectRISKen
dc.subjectTRUSTen
dc.subjectGOVERNMENTen
dc.subjectSCIENCEen
dc.subjectSCIENTISTSen
dc.subjectENVIRONMENTen
dc.subjectCONSERVATION OF NATUREen
dc.subjectEARTH SCIENCESen
dc.subjectDECISION MAKINGen
dc.subjectENERGYen
dc.subjectNUCLEAR POWER STATIONSen
dc.subject2002en
dc.subjectGreat Britainen
dc.titleUEA-MORI Risk Survey, 2002en
dc.typeDataseten
dc.coverageGreat Britainen
Appears in Collections:Cessda

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.