Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Examination of different socioeconomic factors that contribute to the public acceptance of nuclear energy

  • Received : 2017.10.02
  • Accepted : 2018.02.25
  • Published : 2018.06.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Public acceptance is a major issue that will determine the future of nuclear energy. In this article, we review relevant studies and identify several common patterns of nuclear public acceptance. Based on these patterns and four categories of factors, we propose hypotheses on the impact of different socioeconomic factors on the public opinion of nuclear energy. These factors were demographic and social influences, politico-economic, energy conditions, and nuclear accidents and natural risks. We tested these hypotheses using a data set including survey results on public opinion of nuclear energy in 59 countries from 1987 to 2014. Results of the regression analysis generally verified the proposed hypotheses, especially regarding the positive impact of education or geological suitability and the negative effect of improved living standards and democracy on nuclear acceptance. We propose policy recommendations, including a better focus on education and communication and a thorough consideration of the social and geological conditions a country needs to make before deciding to go nuclear. Potential weaknesses of this study are also discussed, including the possible causal relation between independent variables and the binary nature of the dependent variable.

Keywords

References

  1. A.M. Weinberg, Social institutions and nuclear energy-II, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 32 (1995) 1071-1080. https://doi.org/10.1080/18811248.1995.9731821
  2. A.M. Weinberg, The most serious question now facing nuclear energy is its acceptance by the public, Am. Sci. 64 (1976) 16-21.
  3. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, S. Read, B. Barbara, How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits, Policy Sci. 9 (1978) 127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
  4. S. Ansolabehere, D.M. Konisky, Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants, Public Opin. Q. 73 (2009) 566-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp041
  5. V.H.M. Visschers, M. Siegrist, How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster, Risk Anal. 33 (2013) 333-347. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x
  6. P.C. Stern, T. Dietz, L. Kalof, Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern, Environ. Behav. 25 (1993) 322-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
  7. J. Mervis, Politics doesn't always rule: ideology is just one factor shaping views on science issues, Science 349 (2015) 16. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.349.6243.16
  8. P. Slovic, Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the riskassessment battlefield, Risk Anal. 19 (1999) 689-701.
  9. R.P. Barke, H.C. Jenkins-Smith, Politics & scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy, Risk Anal. 13 (1993).
  10. J. Flynn, P. Slovic, C.K. Mertz, Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks, Risk Anal. 14 (1994) 1101-1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x
  11. M.S. Yim, P.A. Vaganov, Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and attitude: theory, Prog. Nucl. Energy 42 (2003).
  12. E. Yamamura, Effect of free media on views regarding nuclear energy after the Fukushima accident, Kyklos 65 (2012) 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2011.00530.x
  13. J. Palfreman, A tale of two fears: exploring media depictions of nuclear power and global warming, Rev. Policy Res. 23 (2006).
  14. O. Renn, Public responses to the Chernobyl accident, J. Environ. Psychol. 10 (1990) 151-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80125-2
  15. P. Slovic, Perceived risk, trust, and democracy, Risk Anal. 13 (1993) 675-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01329.x
  16. P.A. Groothuis, G. Miller, Locating hazardous waste facilities: the influence of NIMBY beliefs, Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 53 (1994).
  17. Z. Csereklyei, Measuring the impact of nuclear accidents on energy policy, Ecol. Econ. 99 (2014) 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.010
  18. S. Jasanoff, S.H. Kim, Sociotechnical imaginaries and nuclear power in the United States and South Korea, Minerva 47 (2009).
  19. F. Bazile, Social impacts and public perception of nuclear power, in: A. Alonso (Ed.), Infrastructure and Methodologies for the Justification of Nuclear Power Programmes, Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2012.
  20. L. Rinkevicius, Public risk perceptions in a 'Double-Risk' society: the case of the ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania, Innov.: Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 13 (2000) 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1080/713670521
  21. C.C. Lee, Y.B. Chiu, Nuclear energy consumption, oil prices, and economic growth: evidence from highly industrialized countries, Energy Econ. 33 (2011) 236-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2010.07.001
  22. D.M. Reiner, T.E. Curry, M.A. De Figueiredo, H.J. Herzog, S.D. Ansolabehere, K. Itaoka, F. Johnsson, M. Odenberger, American exceptionalism? Similarities and differences in national attitudes toward energy policy and global warming, Environ. Sci. Technol. 40 (2006) 2093-2098. https://doi.org/10.1021/es052010b
  23. C.J.H. Midden, B. Verplanken, The stability of nuclear attitudes after Chernobyl, J. Environ. Psychol. 10 (1990) 111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80122-7
  24. C. De Boer, I. Catsburg, The impact of nuclear accidents on attitudes toward nuclear energy, Public Opin. Q. 52 (1988) 254-261. https://doi.org/10.1086/269100
  25. P. Hogselius, Spent nuclear fuel policies in historical perspective: an international comparison, Energy Policy 37 (2009) 254-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.043
  26. A. Sundstrom, A.M. McCright, Women and nuclear energy: examining the gender divide in opposition to nuclear power among Swedish citizens and politicians, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 (2016) 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.08.008
  27. Q. Li, M. Fuhrmann, B.R. Early, A. Vedlitz, Preferences, knowledge, and citizen probability assessments of the terrorism risk of nuclear power, Rev. Policy Res. 29 (2012) 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2011.00552.x
  28. R.M. O'Brien, A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors, Qual. Quant. 41 (2007) 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
  29. E. Latre, T. Perko, P. Thijssen, Public opinion change after the Fukushima nuclear accident, Energy Policy 104 (2017).
  30. V.P. Nguyen, M.S. Yim, Post-Cold War civilian nuclear cooperation and implications for nuclear nonproliferation, Prog. Nucl. Energy 93 (2016) 246-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2016.08.019
  31. M.V. Ramana, Nuclear power and the public, Bull. At. Sci. 67 (2011) 43-51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096340211413358
  32. S. Grano, Perception of risk towards nuclear energy in Taiwan and Hong Kong, Taiwan Comp. Perspect. 5 (2014) 60-78.

Cited by

  1. Environmental beliefs and public acceptance of nuclear energy in China: A moderated mediation analysis vol.137, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.111141
  2. Key factors affecting disposal of radioactive waste in the sustainable development approach vol.14, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2020-0002
  3. An exploration of public risk perception and governmental engagement of nuclear energy in India vol.20, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2086
  4. Examining the influence of public participation on public acceptance of nuclear power plants: the case study of Qinshan NPP, China vol.58, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2020.1828196
  5. Comparative Evaluation of Direct Disposal and Pyro-SFR Nuclear Fuel Cycle Alternatives Using Multi Criteria Decision Making in Korea vol.14, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14123590