Wouter Poortinga

@article{568,

title = {International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century},

author = {S Capstick and L Whitmarsh and W Poortinga and N Pidgeon and P Upham},

url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.343/abstract},

doi = {10.1002/wcc.343},

year  = {2015},

date = {2015-01-01},

journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change},

volume = {6},

pages = {35-61},

chapter = {35},

abstract = {
Public perceptions of climate change are known to differ between nations and to have fluctuated over time. Numerous plausible characterizations of these variations, and explanations for them, are to be found in the literature. However, a clear picture has not yet emerged as to the principal trends and patterns that have occurred over the past quarter-century or the factors behind these changes. This systematic review considers previous empirical research that has addressed the temporal aspects to public perceptions. We address findings that have been obtained since the 1980s and using a range of methodologies. In this review, we consider early, seminal work examining public perceptions; survey studies carried out over long timescales and at an international scale; detailed statistical analyses of the drivers of changing perceptions; and qualitative research featuring a longitudinal component. Studies point to growing skepticism in the latter 2000s in some developed countries, underpinned by economic and sociopolitical factors. Even so, in many parts of the world, there has been growing concern about climate change in recent years. We conclude that the imbalance in the literature toward polling data, and toward studies of public perceptions in Western nations (particularly the United States), leaves much unknown about the progression of public understanding of climate change worldwide. More research is required that uses inferential statistical procedures to understand the reasons behind trends in public perceptions. The application of qualitative longitudinal methodologies also offers the potential for better appreciation of the cultural contexts in which climate change perceptions are evolving. WIREs Clim Change 2015, 6:35–61. doi: 10.1002/wcc.321
 
},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1165,

title = {Uncertain climate: An investigation into public scepticism about anthropogenic climate change},

author = {W Poortinga and A Spence and L Whitmarsh and S Capstick and N Pidgeon},

year  = {2011},

date = {2011-01-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{dd28667d3dce4b49bc9e1b8a679c8a90,

title = {Reframing nuclear power in the UK energy debate: Nuclear power, climate change mitigation and radioactive waste},

author = {K Bickerstaff and I Lorenzoni and NF Pidgeon and W Poortinga and P Simmons},

doi = {10.1177/0963662506066719},

issn = {0963-6625},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-04-01},

journal = {Public Understanding of Science},

volume = {17},

number = {2},

pages = {145–168},

publisher = {Sage Publications},

abstract = {In the past decade, human influence on the climate through increased use of fossil fuels has become widely acknowledged as one of the most pressing issues for the global community. For the United Kingdom, we suggest that these concerns have increasingly become manifest in a new strand of political debate around energy policy, which reframes nuclear power as part of the solution to the need for low-carbon energy options. A mixed-methods analysis of citizen views of climate change and radioactive waste is presented, integrating focus group data and a nationally representative survey. The data allow us to explore how UK citizens might now and in the future interpret and make sense of this new framing of nuclear power-which ultimately centers on a risk-risk trade-off scenario. We use the term "reluctant acceptance" to describe how, in complex ways, many focus group participants discursively re-negotiated their position on nuclear energy when it was positioned alongside climate change. In the concluding section of the paper, we reflect on the societal implications of the emerging discourse of new nuclear build as a means of delivering climate change mitigation and set an agenda for future research regarding the (re)framing of the nuclear energy debate in the UK and beyond.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1156,

title = {Climate change or nuclear power - no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain},

author = {N Pidgeon and I Lorenzoni and W Poortinga},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-01-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {18},

pages = {69-85},

chapter = {69},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1157,

title = {Climate change or nuclear power - no thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain.},

author = {N Pidgeon and I Lorenzoni and W Poortinga},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-01-01},

journal = {Global Environmental Change},

volume = {18},

number = {1},

pages = {69-85},

chapter = {69},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{501,

title = {Reframing the nuclear debate in the UK: radioactive waste and climate change mitigation},

author = {K Bickerstaff and I Lorenzoni and N Pidgeon and W Poortinga and P Simmons},

year  = {2008},

date = {2008-01-01},

journal = {Public Understanding of Science},

volume = {17},

pages = {145-169},

chapter = {145},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{1164,

title = {Exploring the dimensionality of trust in risk regulation},

author = {W Poortinga and N Pidgeon},

year  = {2003},

date = {2003-00-01},

journal = {Risk Analysis},

volume = {23},

number = {5},

chapter = {961},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}