English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The design framework and operational guidelines for conducting repetitive dialogue between public and nuclear engineers are described in this paper.   An action research project named repetitive dialogue forum has been conducted in two municipalities where nuclear facilities were sited. The qualitative evaluation by public participants indicated that the public trust in the nuclear experts, known as the crucial factor for meaningful communication, was successfully established through the dialogue forum. In addition, the expert showed a marked psychological change from distrust to trust in public.   Through a detailed analysis of the comments of the participants raised during the forums, the nuclear risk recognition scheme of the public was clarified. The constituents of the risk recognition scheme about nuclear facilities were identified as follows. The first is related to the technical risk recognition factor including purely technical risk, organizational elements and regulatory elements. The second is the social risk recognition factor including economical and mental elements. The last is the communication factor including the influence of mass media, difficulty in frank communication in local community etc. It became clear that the information provision activities conducted by the government and the nuclear industry were lack of in-depth understanding of actual information needs in the public.   Provision of information contents consistent with our observations is recommended for reestablishment of public trust in expert and for more informative dialogical interactions.

Clarification of Nuclear Risk Recognition Scheme through Dialogue Forum