' 원자력 에너지 정책 갈등에 대한 이해당사자의 프레임 분석 : 원전지역 주민을 중심으로' 의 참고문헌
-
후쿠시마 사고 이후 일본의 원자력 관련 제도 변화에 대한 연구. 일본연구논총
-
후기실증주의 정책분석 방법론: 이분법적 관점을 넘어 통합적 관점으로의 전환
-
행정학연구의 대안적 방법으로서의 방법론적 다각화(Triangulation): 질적 방법과 양적방법의 결합
-
행정학사전
-
한국수력원자력. 지역공동체경영 추진 종합보고 ?2007년도 실적및 2008년도 계획-. 2008.2 [2008]
-
한국수력원자력2014년 지속가능경영보고서 [2014]
-
한국수력원자력2004년 원자력발전백서 [2004]
-
한국수력원자력2008년 원자력발전백서 [2008]
-
한국수력원자력2009년 원자력발전백서 [2009]
-
한국수력원자력2010년 원자력발전백서 [2010]
-
한국수력원자력2011년 한국수력원자력 경영목표(성과지표) [2011]
-
한국수력원자력2012년 한국수력원자력 경영목표(성과지표) [2012]
-
한국수력원자력2013년 한국수력원자력 경영목표(성과지표) [2013]
-
한국수력원자력http://www.khnp.co.kr/ (검색일: 년 06월 05일)행 [2015]
-
지역공동체경영전략 수립을 위한 연구
-
지식경제부. (2013). 제6차 전력수급기본계획(2013-2027)지식경제부 공고2013-63호 [2013]
-
지식경제부. (2012b). “1조 달러 행정, 2조 달러 전략”2012년 지식경제부업무보고 [2011]
-
지식경제부. (2011)“다함께 성장하는 선진 경제로” 2011년 지식경제부업무계획 [2010]
-
지식경제부. (2010b). ‘위기를 딛고 선진경제로’ 신성장궤도 진입 전략2010년 지식경제부 업무보고 [2009]
-
지식경제부. (2010a). 제5차 전력수급기본계획(2010-2024년)지식경제부공고 제2010-490호 [2010]
-
지식경제부. (2009). 실물경제의 선제적 위기대응과 미래준비전략2009년지식경제부 업무보고 [2008]
-
지식경제부. (2008b). 지식 혁신 주도형 산업강국 건설2008년 지식경제부업무보고자료 [2008]
-
지식경제부. (2008a). 제4차 전력수급기본계획(2008-2022년)지식경제부공고 제2008-277호 [2008]
-
지식경제부. 업무현황. 제311회 국회(정기회) 국정감사. 지식경제위원회지식경제부 [2012]
-
지방정부와 주민간 입지갈등의 갈등유발요인에 관한 연구 : 울산원자력발전소 입지갈등사례를 중심으로
-
중앙공무원교육원. 주민혐오시설 설치에 따른 갈등해소방안 연구-폐기물처리시설 사례분석을 중심으로한국정책학회 추계학술발표논문집 [2006]
-
주민투표 후 방폐장에 대한 위험판단과 위험수용성에 관한 연구. 한국행정학보 , 42(2): 149-168
-
조사방법론
-
정책이론에서 합리성의 한계와 모순의 관리
-
정책분석 및 평가에 대한 접근방법의 변천: 실증주의에 대한 대안의 탐색
-
정자치부 주민등록통계(검색일: 년 01월 30일)http://rcps.egov.go.kr:8081/jsp/stat/ppl_stat_jf.jsp [2015]
-
정부업무평가위원회. (2014). 2013년 국정과제평가결과국무조정실 정부업무평가위원회 [2014]
-
일반논문: 후쿠시마 사고 이후 원자력에 대한 한국인의인식유형 분석
-
위험인식모형과 원자력위험: 심리측정패러다임 검증 및 적용
-
위험수용성의 제도적 맥락
-
위키피디아. www.wikipedia.org (검색어: 기후변화협약검색일: 년04월 01일) [2015]
-
원전산업의 환경변화분석 및 국민안심 전략
-
원자력에 대한 위험인식과 지각된 지식, 커뮤니케이션 채널의 이용, 제3자 효과가 낙관적 편견에 미치는 영향: 후쿠시마 원전사고를 중심으로
-
원자력안전위원회. (2015). 2015년 원자력안전위원회 업무보고[보도자료] [2015]
-
원자력안전위원회. (2014a). 제23회 원자력안전위원회의안번호 제2호 후쿠시마 원전사고 후속대책 추진현황 및 향후 조치계획 [2014]
-
원자력안전위원회. (2013). 안전 최우선 국민이 신뢰하는 안전한 원자력2013년도 업무계획 [2013]
-
원자력안전위원회. 2014년 원자력안전위원회 업무보고. 원자력안전바로 세우겠습니다 [2014]
-
원자력안전위원회. 2012년도 성과관리 시행계획원자력안전위원회 [2012]
-
원자력안전위원회2011년 원자력안전위원회 연차보고서 [2011]
-
원자력 위험인식 변화추세 및 정책적 함의: 수도권 일반주민을 중심으로. 경인행정학회
-
원자력 발전소에 대한 신뢰, 인식된 위험과 혜택, 그리고 수용성
-
울진군 민-관 갈등 조정사례 분석: 국책사업 추진에 대한시사점. 한국정책학회 동계학술발표논문집
-
우종필교수의 구조방정식모델 개념과 이해
-
우리나라 원전 거버넌스의 과제와 방향
-
연구논문: 도시생활환경을 둘러싼 국가-주민관계의 변화와 전망-혐오, 위해시설 기피현상 (NIMBY) 에 대한 국가정책을중심으로. 공간과 사회
-
에너지믹스위의 에너지 믹스. 한국가스공사최열 2007년 1월호. http://rieee.knu.ac.kr/zb41/view.php?id=colum&page=8&sn1=&divpage=1&sn=off&ss=on&sc=on&select_arrange=headnum&desc=asc&no=131 [2007]
-
에너지경제연구원. (2014)KEEI 에너지수요전망 [2014]
-
언어네트워크분석 기법을 활용한 갈등 프레임의 분석
-
시사상식사전. 박문각. (검색어: 공론조사검색일: 년 06월 07일)http://terms.naver.com/etry.nhn?docId=1716371&cid=43667&categoryId=43667 [2015]
-
산업통상자원부. (2015). 역동적인 혁신경제2015년 관계부처 합동 업무보고 [2015]
-
산업통상자원부. (2014b). 기업에 더 큰 시장을, 국민에게 더 좋은 일자리를2014년 산업통상자원부 업무보고 [2014]
-
산업통상자원부. (2014a)제2차 에너지기본계획 [2014]
-
산업통상자원부. (2013). 창조경제 생태계 기반 조성과 글로벌 전문기업육성2013년 산업통상자원부 업무보고 [2013]
-
산업자원부. (2006). 제3차 전력수급기본계획(2006-2020년)산업자원부 공고 제2006-349호 [2006]
-
비선호시설 입지갈등요인에 관한 연구: 노원･목동･강남쓰레기 소각장건설사례의 비교분석
-
벤심(Vensim PLE 6.3 프로그램). www.vensim.com/free-download(검색일: 년 05월 12일) [2015]
-
마루야마 시게키. 후쿠시마 원전참사와 일본 시민사회의 분기점(김영환 역)시민과세계 . 19(2011.7.): 124-135 [2011]
-
데쓰나리. 원전 없는 미래로(양은숙? 한승동 역)
-
당진전력문화홍보관. http://www당진전력문화홍보관.com/site/ (검색일:년 06월 07일) [2015]
-
다수인민원 조정체계의 구성 및 운영방안: 민원배심원제의 도입 및 적정화 방안을 중심으로
-
녹색연합 홈페이지. www.greenkorea.org(검색일: 년 04월 11일) [2015]
-
녹색당 홈페이지http://kgreens.org/ (검색일: 년 04월 26일) [2015]
-
김대중 대통령의 시스템 사고
-
기후변화 대응전략으로서의 원자력발전정책에 대한 비판적 검토: 지속 가능한 발전의 관점에서
-
기사통합검색(KINDS)www.kinds.or.kr (검색일: 년 04월 26일) [2015]
-
국무조정실공공기관의 갈등관리 매뉴얼 [2013]
-
국가에너지위원회. 제1차 에너지기본계획. (2008.8.27.). 제3차 국가에너지위원회 의안번호 제1호. 국무총리실, 기획재정부, 교육과학기술부, 외교통상부, 지식경제부, 환경부국토해양부 [2008]
-
구조방정식모형 : 이해와 활용
-
공공갈등과 합의형성 : 심의민주주의 방식의 적용과 한계
-
거버넌스를 통한 정책갈등 예방 모색: 부안사태와 제주해군기지 사례를 중심으로
-
講談社. "原子力村の不都合な??：原?大手企業と霞が? ズブズブの??を入手(원자력 마을의 불편한 진실: 원전개기업과의 유착증거 입수)週刊現代(6月28日)▒ [2011]
-
東京電力福島原子力?電所事故調査委員?. ??原?事故調最終報告書(국회원전사고조사최종보고서)東京 [2012]
-
大鹿靖明. "?産省の原?ク?デタ?が始まる 電力閥天下り100人リスト＝訂正あり(경제산업성 원전 쿠테타 시작, 전력 낙하산인사100인 목록)." アエラ7月11日, 17 [2011]
-
“핵안전연대 "방폐장 2단계 건설 백지화해야"”연합뉴스 [2011]
-
“한수원 조석사장 ‘원전 해체서도 세계 강국 도약’”동아일보 [2015]
-
“한빛원전 방사성폐기물 육상이동 안 된다”광주일보 [2014]
-
“한미 원자력협정 42년 만에 전면개정…우라늄 저농축…재활용 길 열려.”데일리한국 [2014]
-
“폐쇄비용만 15조. 그래도 원전이 싸다고?”
-
“탈핵 시대.”
-
“진실은 거짓 뒤에 감춰져 있다.”
-
“지자체 접경지역은 혐오시설 집결소?”문화일보 [2010]
-
“제7차 전력수급기본계획 공청회 ‘첨예한 입장’만확인”원자력신문 [2015]
-
“제6차 전력수급기본계획 수립과정에 대한 반박”에너지 정의행동. http://baljeon.nodong.net/xe/free/422549 (검색일: 2015년 05월 19일)- [2013]
-
“정부-삼척시 갈등 2라운드…"원전강행"VS. "백지화" 대립 첨예”강원일보 [2014]
-
“장문희, 원전 ‘계속운전-폐로’여부, 정치 아닌 기술로만 판단해야.”
-
“월성 1호기 계속운전 반대 주민 3명, 무기한 단식투쟁”대구일보 [2015]
-
“원전신화 대 해부: 정말 경제성 있나.”
-
“원전 재가동 앞두고 주민-한수원 갈등 고조”YTN [2015]
-
“원전 자율 유치한 신리마을 보상절차 지연 ‘분통’”울산매일 [2015]
-
“원자력 레짐의 메카니즘-핵에너지의 생산과 소비에 관한정치사회적 분석: 원자력마피아의 정체,” 원자력마피아, 너는 누구인가?
-
“울산 온 국민통합위 "원전사고 때 지자체 해결권한 강화돼야"”뉴스1 [2015]
-
“영덕군 핵발전소 찬반 주민투표 추진위원회 출범”매일일보 [2015]
-
“신한울원전 8개 대안사업비 2800억 지원받아 활기”영남일보 [2015]
-
“신규원전건설, 정부의 침묵 속에 갈등만 증폭”건설경제 [2014]
-
“수천억 신고리 원전 지원금 갈등.”파이낸셜뉴스. 2015.02.27. “[fn 사설] 월성1호기 수명연장, 불가피한 선택”중앙일보 [2015]
-
“서생주민 '원전지원금 집행' 갈등 법적 다툼”울산매일 [2015]
-
“사용후 핵연료 공론화위원회 권고안은 37년간 묵혀둔 난제를 더꼬아버린 최악의 권고. 정부는 권고안을 수용하지 말고 새로운 공론화 방안을 추진하라”에너지 정의행동 성명서. http://energyjustice.kr /zbxe/622279 (검색일: 2015년 05월 25일)- [2015]
-
“반원전 후보 당선…원전 건설 차질 불가피”YTN [2014]
-
“박근혜 대통령, “정책현장의 갈등관리시스템 강화 검토””YTN [2013]
-
“모호한 전문가검토그룹의 수준미달 검토의견서에 기대는 사용후핵연료공론화위원회의 행태를 우려한다”
-
“독일, 원전 포기 선언.”해럴드경제. 2014.12.11. “대타협 이끌어낸 울진 원전 갈등…1조9000억 풀려 지역경제 '대박'”한겨레 [2011]
-
“경북 동해안, 원전 갈등으로 몸살”아주경제 [2015]
-
“[서울] 혐오시설 밀집! 임대아파트 차별논란”YTN [2007]
-
“"고리1호기 재수명 연장 사실상 포기" 가닥”국민일보. [단독] [2015]
-
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information design journal+ document design, 13(1), 51-62.
-
[좋은 나라 이슈페이퍼] <68> 국민여론 외면하는 정부 핵정책, “핵발전 정책, 누가 어떻게 결정하나?”. 윤순진 서울대 환경대학원 교수
-
[보도자료] “김제남 의원
-
Zimmerman, J. F. (1986). Participatory democracy: Populism revived. Praeger Publishers.
-
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. BeverlyHills.
-
Wynne, B. (1992). Sheep Farming after Chernobyl: A case Study inCommunicating Scientific information. in Lewenstein. B. V. ed,. When Science meets the Public. American Association for theAdvancement of Science, 43-67,
-
Williams, R. H., & Benford, R. D. (2000). Two faces of collective actionframes: A theoretical consideration. Current perspectives insocial theory, 20, 127-152.
-
Wildavsky, A. B., & Dake, K. (1990). Theories of risk perception: Whofears what and why?. Daedalus, 41-60.
-
Wildavsky, A. B. (1979). Speaking truth to power. TransactionPublishers.
-
Weisberg, B. (1993). One City’s Approach to NIMBY: How New YorkCity Developed a Fair Share Siting Process. Journal of theAmerican Planning Association. 59(1), 93-97.
-
Weick, K. E., & Kiesler, C. A. (1979). The social psychology of organizing(Vol. 2). Random House.
-
Weick, K. E., & Bougon, M. G. (1986). Organizations as cognitivemaps: Charting ways to success and failure. The thinking organization,102-135.
-
Weick, K. E. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity:Tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24(4),797-806.
-
Weick, K. E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.
-
Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research inorganizational behavior, 1(1), 41-74.
-
Walsh, E., Warland, R., & Clayton-Smith, D. (1993). "Backyards,NIMBYs, and incinerator sitings: Implications for social movementtheory." Social. Problems. 40(1), 25-38.
-
Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg, C., & Kuhlicke, C. (2013). The riskperception paradox?implications for governance and communicationof natural hazards. Risk analysis, 33(6), 1049-1065.
-
Verplanken, B. (1989). Beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward nuclearenergy before and after Chernobyl in a longitudinal within-subjectsdesign. Environment and Behavior, 21(4), 371-392.
-
Torgerson, D. (2007). Promoting the policy orientation: Lasswell incontext. Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics andmethods, 15-28.
-
Tolliday, S. (2012). "Crumbling Dream: Japan's Nuclear Quest, 1954-2011." Business and Economic History on?Line 10. http://www.thebhc.org/sites/default/files/tolliday.pdf
-
Takahashi, L. M., & Dear, M. J. (1997). The changing dynamics ofcommunity opposition to human service facilities. Journal ofAmerican Planning Association, 63(1), 79-93.
-
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
-
Steinberg, M. W. (1999). The talk and back talk of collective action: Adialogic analysis of repertoires of discourse among nineteenth centuryEnglish cotton spinners. American J ournal of Sociology, 105,736-780.
-
Starr, C., & Whipple, C. (1980). Risks of risk decisions. Science,208(4448), 1114-1119.
-
Stanghellini, P. L., & Collentine, D. (2008). Stakeholder discourse andwater management? implementation of the participatory modelCATCH in a Northern Italian alpine sub-catchment. Hydrology andEarth System Sciences Discussions, 12(1), 317-331.
-
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles ofprotest. Frontiers in social movement theory, 133-155.
-
Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current directionsin psychological science, 15(6), 322-325.
-
Slovic, P. (1997). "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics and Science: Surveyingthe Risk-assessment Battelfield", In the M. Bazerman, D. Messick,A. Tenbrunsel & K. Wade-Benzoni (eds.), Environment, Ethicsand Behavior, New Lexington Press.
-
Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy. Risk Analysis. 13(6), 675-682.
-
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
-
Slinger, J., Cuppen, M., & Hendriks, M. M. M. (2007). How responsiveare scientists and policy makers to the perceptions of Dutch andFlemish citizens living alongside the Scheldt Estuary? Insights onFlood Risk Management from the Netherlands.
-
Sjoberg, L. (2004). The Methodology of Risk Perception Research. Quality and Quantity. 34: 407-418.
-
Singer, J. L. (1995). Mental processes and brain architecture:Confronting the complex adaptive systems of human thought. InSanta fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity-proceedings(22: 1-1). adds. Wesley Publishing Co.
-
Singer, E., & Endreny, P. M. (1993). Reporting on Risk: How theMass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Other Hazards. RussellSage Foundation.
-
Siegrist, M., Sutterlin, B., & Keller, C. (2014). Why have some peoplechanged their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident inFukushima?. Energy Policy, 69, 356-363.
-
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity,social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk analysis, 20(3),353-362.
-
Siegrist, M., & Visschers, V. H. (2013). Acceptance of nuclear power:The Fukushima effect. Energy Policy, 59, 112-119.
-
Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison oflay people's perceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 971-979.
-
Short, J. F. (1984). The social fabric at risk: toward the social transformationof risk analysis. American sociological review, 49(6),711-725.
-
Shim, J., Park, C., & Wilding, M. (2015). Identifying policy framesthrough semantic network analysis: an examination of nuclear energypolicy across six countries. Policy Science. 48, 51-83.
-
Sellers, M. P. (1993). NIMBY: a case study in conflict politics. PublicAdministration Quarterly, 16(4), 460-477.
-
Scott, J. & Peter J. C. (2011). The SAGE handbook of social networkanalysis. (Eds.). SAGE publications.
-
Sander, A. (2011). From ‘Decide, Announce, Defend’to ‘Announce,Discuss, Decide’. Suggestions on how to Improve Acceptance andLegitimacy for Germany’s 380kV Grid Extension. The InternationalInstitute for Industrial Environmental Economics (IIIEE). LundUniversity. Online verfugbar unter: http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/oois.
-
Sabatier, P. A. (1993). Policy Change over a Decade or More. InSabatier, P. A. & Jenkins-Smith, H. C.(eds.). Policy Change andLearning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder West viewPress.
-
Ruin, I., Gaillard, J. C., & Lutoff, C. (2007). How to get there?Assessing motorists’ flash flood risk perception on daily itineraries. Environmental hazards, 7(3), 235-244.
-
Rohrmann, B. (1997), Risk Orientation Questionnaire: AttitudesTowards Risk Decisions, University of Melbourne.
-
Rice, R. E., & Danowski, J. (1991). Comparing Comments andSemantic Networks about Voice Mail. In Proceedings of the ASISAnnual Meeting, 28, 134-38.
-
Renn, O. (1990). Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 10(2), 151-167.
-
Rabe, B. G. (1994). Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous waste siting inCanada and the United States. Brookings Institution.
-
Putnam, L. L., & Holmer, M. (1992). Framing, reframing, and issuedevelopment.
-
Pruitt, D. G. (1999). Strategic Choice in Negotiation. in J. W. Breslin,& J. Z. Rubin(eds.). Negotiation Theory and Practice, Program onNegotiation at Harvard Law School.
-
Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate,and Settlement. Random House.
-
Prati, G., & Zani, B. (2012). The effect of the Fukushima nuclear accidenton risk perception, antinuclear behavioral intentions, attitude,trust, environmental beliefs, and values. Environment and behavior ,1-17.
-
Portney, K. E. (1991). Siting Hazardous Waste TreatmentFacilities-The NIMBY Syndrome. Auburn House.
-
Pol, E., Masso, A. D., Castrechini, A., Bonet, M. R., & Vidal, T. (2006). Psychological parameters to understand and manage theNIMBY effect. Revue europeenne de psychologie appliquee, 56,43-51.
-
Pinkley, R. L., & Northcraft, G. B. (1994). Conflict frames of reference:Implications for dispute processes and outcomes. Academy ofManagement J ournal. 37, 193-205.
-
Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretationsof conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 117-126.
-
Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., & Gibson, R. (1992). Riskperception. Risk: Analysis, perception and management, 89-134.
-
Paton, D., Smith, L., Daly, M., & Johnston, D. (2008). Risk perceptionand volcanic hazard mitigation: Individual and social perspectives. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 172(3), 179-188.
-
Paton, D. (2008). Risk communication and natural hazard mitigation:how trust influences its effectiveness. International J ournal ofGlobal Environmental Issues, 8(1), 2-16.
-
O’Hare, M., Bacow, L., & Sanderson, D. (1983). Facility Siting andPublic Opposition. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
-
Otway, H. (1992). Public wisdom, expert fallibility: toward a contextualtheory of risk. in S. Krimsky & Golding. (eds.), Social Theories ofRisk. Praeger, 215-228.
-
Nakamura, A. & Kikuchi, M. (2011). What we Know, and what wehave Not Yet Learned: Triple Disasters and the FukushimaNuclear Fiasco in Japan. Public Administration Review, 71(6),893-899.
-
Nagata, K. 2012.12.03. "Fukushima Meltdowns Set Nuclear EnergyDebate on its Ear." The Japan TImes Online, (2012.12.03.).
-
Morell, D. (1987). “Siting and the Politics of Equity”. In ResolvingLocational Conflict, edited by Robert Lake. New Brunswick, Centerfor Urban Policy Research.
-
Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness andperception of flood risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 164-173.
-
McIvor, D., Paton, D., & Johnston, D. (2009). Modelling communitypreparation for natural hazards: understanding hazard cognitions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 3(2), 39-46.
-
McAvoy, G. E. (1999). Controlling Technocracy: Citizen Rationalityand Nimby Syndrome. Georgetown University Press.
-
Matheny, A., & Williams, B. (1985). Knowledge vs. NIMBY: Assessingflorida's strategy for siting hazardous waste disposal facilities. Policy Studies Journal, 14(1), 70-80.
-
Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policyprocess. Yale University Press.
-
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (1990). Effects of the Chernobyl accidenton public perceptions of nuclear plant accident risks. RiskAnalysis, 10(3), 393-399.
-
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of "muddling through". Public administrationreview, 79-88.
-
Leydesdorff, L. 한국어의 내용분석을 위한 KrKwic 프로그램의 이해와 적용
-
Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractableenvironmental conflicts: Concepts and cases, Island Press.
-
Lerner, D., & Lasswell, H. D. (Eds.). (1968). The policy sciences. Stanford University Press.
-
Leiss, W., & Chociolko, C. (1994). Risk and responsibility. Montrealand Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
-
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes:Philosophical Papers(eds). John Worrall and Gregory Currie. CambridgeUniversity Press.
-
Kraft, M. E. & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen Participation and theNIMBY Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal. The Western Political Quarterly, 44(2), 299-328.
-
Kaufman, S., Elliott, M., & Shmueli, D.(2003). Frames, Framing andReframing. In G. B urgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Conflict ResearchConsortium: University of Color ado, Boulder. Posted: September2003, http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/framing/
-
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble,R., ... & Ratick, S. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptualframework. Risk analysis, 8(2), 177-187.
-
Kasperson, R. E., Golding, D., & Tuler, S. (1992). Social distrust as afactor in siting hazardous facilities and communicating risks. Journal of social issues, 48(4), 161-187.
-
Kasper, R. G. (1979). “Real” vs. perceived risk: Implications for policyin G. T. Goodman & W. D. Rows(eds.). Energy Risk management. Academic Press.
-
Karanci, A. N., Aksit, B., & Dirik, G. (2005). Impact of a communitydisaster awareness training program in Turkey: Does it influencehazard-related cognitions and preparedness behaviors. SocialBehavior and Personality: an international journal, 33(3), 243-258.
-
Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the Quantitaive Definition ofRisk. Risk Analysis. 1(1), 11-27.
-
Jungermann, H., & Slovic, P. (1993). Characteristics of individual riskperception. Knesebeck Verlag, Munchen, Germany.
-
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: a Guide to the Programand Applications(2th ed.). SPSS Press.
-
Joffe, H. (1999). Risk and 'the Other'. Cambridge University Press.
-
Jantsch, E. (1975). Design for Evaluation, Braziller.
-
Jang, H. Y., & Barnett, G. A. (1994). Cultural differences in organizationalcommunication: A semantic network analysis 1. Bulletin deMethodologie Sociologique, 44(1), 31-59.
-
Ipsos. (2011). Ipsos Global advisory: Sharp World Wide Drop inSupport for Nuclear Energy as 26% of New Opponents SayFukushima Drove Their Decision.
-
IEA. (2012). World Energy Outlook 2013. International Energy Agency.
-
Hymans, J. (2011). "Veto Players, Nuclear Energy, and Nonproliferation:Domestic Institutional Barriers to a Japanese Bomb." InternationalSecurity, 36 (2), 154-189.
-
Hunter, S., & Leyden, K. M. (1995). Beyond NIMBY: Explaining oppositionto hazardous waste facilities. Policy Studies J ournal. 23(4),601-619.
-
Hung, H., Shaw, R., & Kobayashi, M. (2007). Flood risk managementfor the RUA of Hanoi: importance of community perception ofcatastrophic flood risk in disaster risk planning. DisasterPrevention and Management: An International Journal, 16(2), 245-258.
-
Huang, L., Zhou, Y., Han, Y., Hammitt, J. K., Bi, J., & Liu, Y. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception ofresidents near a nuclear power plant in China. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 110(49), 19742-19747.
-
Hohenemser, C. (1986). Methods for analyzing and comparing technologicalhazards. In V. Covello, J. Menkes, & J. Mumpower (Eds.),Contemporary issues in risk analysis. 1: Risk evaluation and management(pp. 249?274). Plenum.
-
Himmelberger, J. J., Ratick, S. J., & White, A. L. (1991). Compensationfor risks: host community benefits in siting locally unwantedfacilities. Environmental Management, 15(5), 647-658.
-
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social networkmethods. http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/nettext/Introduction_to_Social_Network_Methods.pdfHaynes, K., Barclay, J., & Pidgeon, N. (2008). Whose reality counts?Factors affecting the perception of volcanic risk. J ournal ofVolcanology and Geothermal Research, 172(3), 259-272.
-
Hanke, R., Rosenberg, A., & Gray, B. (2003). “The Story of DrakeChemical: A Burning Issue(Ch.10)” in Lewicki, R., Gray, B., &Elliott, M.(eds.). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts:Concepts and cases, Island Press.
-
Hall, T. E., & Slothower, M. (2009). Cognitive factors affecting homeowners'reactions to defensible space in the Oregon Coast Range. Society and Natural Resources, 22(2), 95-110.
-
Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis:understanding governance in the network society. CambridgeUniversity Press.
-
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multi variate Data Analysis(6th ed.) . Upper SaddleRiver. Pearson Prentice Hall.
-
Gray, B., & Donnellon, A. (1989). An interactive Theory of reframingin negotiation. Unpublished manuscript. Pensylvania StateUniversity, College of Business Administration.
-
Gough, J. (2000). Perceptions of risk from natural hazards in two remoteNew Zealand communities. The Australasian journal of disasterand trauma studies, 2(1), 1-15.
-
Golec, A., & Federico, C. M. (2004). Understanding political conflictand its resolution: Interactive effects of the need for closure andsalient conflict schemas. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 87, 750-762.
-
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization ofexperience. Cambridge, Harvard University Press.
-
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
-
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodologyof grounded theory. Sociology Press.
-
Gell-Mann, M. (1995). The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in theSimple and the Complex. Macmillan.
-
Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). The emergence of post-normalscience. Science, politics and morality, 17, 85-123.
-
Fung, A. & E. O. Wright. (2003). Deepening Democracy: InstitutionalInnovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. Verso.
-
Frey, B., Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Eichenberger, R. (1996). The old ladyvisits your backyard: A tale of morals and markets. J ournal ofPolitical Economy, 104(6), 1297-1313.
-
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.
-
Flynn, J., Burns, W., Mertz, C. K., & Slovic, P. (1992). Trust as a determinantof opposition to a high?level radioactive waste re-190 -pository: Analysis of a structural model. Risk analysis, 12(3),417-429.
-
Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: policy inquiry in post positivistperspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129-146.
-
Fairhurst, G. T., & Sarr, R. A. (1996). The art of framing: Managingthe language of leadership. Jossey-Bass.
-
Fairhurst, G. T. (2005). Reframing the art of framing: Problems andprospects for leadership. Leadership, 1(2), 165-185.
-
Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive leadership: In conversation with leadershippsychology. Sage.
-
Elliott, M., & Hanke, R. (2003) “Framing Effects in Toxic Dispute:Cross-Case Analysis”. in Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M.(eds.). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts andcases, Island Press.
-
Easterling, D. & Kunreuther, H. (1995). The Dilemma of Siting a HighLevel Nuclear waster Respository. Massachusetts: Kluer AcademicPublisher.
-
Dunn, W. N. (2012). Public policy analysis. Pearson.
-
Dryzek, J. (1983). Don’t toss coins in garbage cans. Journal ofPolitics, 28, 301-320.
-
Dougherty, D., & Smythe, M. J. (2004). Sensemaking, organizationalculture, and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied CommunicationResearch, 32(4), 293-317.
-
Doerfel, M. L., & Barnett, G. A. (1999). A semantic network analysisof the International Communication Association. HumanCommunication Research, 25(4), 589-603.
-
Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Lewicki, R., Putnam, L., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R.,Van Woerkum, C. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing:mapping the terrain. Hum Relat. 69(2), 155?193.
-
Dewulf, A., Craps, M., Bouwen, R., Taillieu, T., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2005). Integrated management of natural resources: dealing withambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Waterscience and technology, 52(6), 115-124.
-
Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction tosociological methods. (3rd ed.), McGraw-Hill.
-
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N. K. Denzin(eds.), Sociological methods: A source book. McGraw-Hill.
-
Denson, J. V. (1997). The Costs of War: America’s Pyrrhic Victories. Transaction Publishers.
-
Dear, M. (2007). “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBYSyndrome”. Journal of the American Planning Association. 58(3),288-300.
-
Danowski, J. A. (1982). A network-based content analysis methodologyfor computer-mediated communication: An illustration with a computerbulletin board. Communication yearbook, 6, 904-925.
-
Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: culture and the social constructionof risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48: 21-37.
-
Dake, K. (1991). Orientating dispositions in the perceptions of risk: ananalysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases, Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology. 22: 61-82.
-
Currall, S. C., & Towler, A. J. (2003). Research methods in manage-188 -ment and organizational research: Toward integration of qualitativeand quantitative techniques.
-
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, andmixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: sage.
-
Connor, G. E., & Oppenheimer, B. I. (1993). Deliberation: an un-timedvalue in a timed game. In Congress Reconsidered, 5.
-
Chong, D. & Druckman, J. A. (2007). Framing Public Opinion inCompetitive Democracies. American Political Science Review. 101,637-655.
-
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
-
Carley, K. (1993). Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison ofcontent analysis and map analysis. Sociological methodology, 23,75-126.
-
Brummans, B., Putnam, L., Gray, B., Hanke, R., Lewicki, R., &Wiethoff, C.(2008). Making Sense of Intractable Multiparty Conflict:A Study of Framing in Four Environmental Disputes. Communication Monographs, 75(1), 25-51.
-
Bronfman, N. C., Vazquez, E. L., & Dorantes, G. (2009). An empiricalstudy for the direct and indirect links between trust in regulatoryinstitutions and acceptability of hazards. Safety Science, 47(5),686-692.
-
Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (1997). Mediation as mutual influence:Reexamining the use of framing and reframing. MediationQuarterly, 14(3), 237-249.
-
Bentler, P. M. (2000). Rites, wrongs, and gold in model testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(1), 82-91.
-
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equa-187 -tion models. J ournal of the academy of marketing science, 16(1),74-94.
-
Bachrach, K. M., & Zautra, A. J. (1985). Coping with a communitystressor: The threat of a hazardous waste facility. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 26(2), 127-141.
-
Auerbach, Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2005). Media Framing and ForeignPolicy: The Elite Press vis-a-vis US Policy in Bosnia, 1992?95. Journal of Peace Research, 42(1), 83-99.
-
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). "A ladder of citizen participation." Journal of theAmerican Institute of planners 35(4): 216-224.
-
Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin, 103(3), 411.