Journal of Radiation Protection and Research

The Korean Association for Radiation Protection (대한방사선방어학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Public Perception and Communication Patterns Pertaining to Nuclear Power in Korea: Focusing on the Transition Period from Pro-nuclear to De-nuclear Policy

  • Eunok Han (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety) ;
  • Yoonseok Choi (Department of Education & Research, Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety)
  • Received : 2022.09.07
  • Accepted : 2022.12.07
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: An effective communication strategy for reducing conflicts in South Korea has been designed through the analysis of public perception and communication variables on nuclear power under the conditions of rapidly changing nuclear power policies. Materials and Methods: This study conducted both qualitative research through group discussions based on social psychology and quantitative research through surveys. Results and Discussion: Nuclear power plant (NPP) area residents in favor of nuclear power indicated higher levels of communication, safety perception, and contribution than those against it. NPP area residents trusted the civilian expert groups (18.3%) and local government (17.3%) the most, while metropolitan city residents trusted the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety (20.7%) the most. In determining nuclear power policy, both the NPP area residents (18.1%) and metropolitan city residents (17.1%) prioritized safety, health, and the environment. While metropolitan city residents thought that energy security and economic growth (16.4%) were important, NPP area residents thought the current issue of spent fuel rods (14.1%) to be important. Conclusion: It is necessary for the nuclear power industry to have and actively implement communication and conflict resolution strategies based on the patterns obtained in the study results.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the Project coordinated by Ministry of Science and ICT in Korea. We thank our co-researchers in the project.

References

  1. Stoiber C, Baer A, Pelzer N, Tonhauser W. Handbook on nuclear law. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2003.
  2. Kim JY. Risk society and role of criminal law; Technical development and permitted risk in administrative criminal law. 2012; 24(2):83-105.
  3. Rho JC. Risks and demands on politics in uncertain times: from Luhmann's social systems-theoretic perspective. Soc Theory. 2014;(25):7-39.
  4. Lim CH, Kim SH. A comparative study on strategies for trust recovery and acceptance of nuclear power in nuclear power plant areas. Crisisonomy. 2017;13(11):133-148.
  5. Hove T, Paek HJ. Effects of risk presentation format and fear message on laypeople's risk perceptions. J Public Relat. 2015;19(1): 162-181. https://doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2015.19.1.162
  6. Sandman PM, Miller PM, Johnson BB, Weinstein ND. Agency communication, community outrage, and perception of risk: three simulation experiments. Risk Anal. 1993;13(6):585-598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb01321.x
  7. Paek HJ, Yang JH. The effects of absolute versus relative risk presentation format, source credibility, and numeracy on risk perceptions and behavioral intentions. J Public Relat. 2017;21(3): 32-63. https://doi.org/10.15814/JPR.2017.21.3.32
  8. Janoske M, Liu B, Sheppard B. Understanding risk communication best practice: a guide for emergency managers and communicators [Internet]. College Park, MD: START; 2012 [cited 2022 Dec 25]. Available from: https://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/publications/local_attachments/UnderstandingRiskCommunicationBestPractices.pdf.
  9. Kim MH. [Why do we have to transform conflicts? The necessity and usefulness of conflict transformation]. Korean Public Manag Rev. 2017;31(3):21-45. https://doi.org/10.24210/kapm.2017.31.3.002
  10. Im DK, Lee SA. A theoretical examination of the relationship between deliberative conflict resolution and Korean culture. Journal of Social Science. 2017;28(3):79-97.
  11. Gutmann A, Thompson DF. Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004.
  12. Kang YJ. Deliberative Democracy and Political development in Korea. Korean J Polit Sci. 2008;15(3):67-96.
  13. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236(4799):280-285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
  14. Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences. 1978;9(2):127-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
  15. Van der Pligt J, Midden CJ. Chernobyl: four years later: attitudes, risk management and communication. J Environ Psychol. 1990; 10(2):91-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80120-3
  16. Sjoberg L. Local acceptance of a high-level nuclear waste repository. Risk Anal. 2004;24(3):737-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00472.x
  17. Cha YJ. Risk perception model and nuclear risk: test and application of psychometric paradigm. J Korean Polit Sci Assoc. 2012; 21(1):285-312.
  18. Seo HJ. Fukushima nuclear disaster and negative perceptions of the public about nuclear energy. J Gov Stud. 2013;19(3):321-361.
  19. Lee BJ, Cho SK. A critical insight into methods used to appraise public communication. Media & Soc. 2014;22(2):111-149.
  20. Song HR, Kim WJ, Jung SI. Perception and attitude about risk from science & technology: focused on risk from electromagnetic wave. J Korea Contents Assoc. 2010;10(5):436-445. https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2010.10.5.436
  21. Paek HJ, Yang JH. The effects of absolute versus relative risk presentation format, source credibility, and numeracy on risk perceptions and behavioral intentions. J Public Relat. 2017;21(3): 32-63. https://doi.org/10.15814/JPR.2017.21.3.32
  22. Kim MK, Kim TY. Reliability and validity evaluation of source characteristics scales with a proposal of a new composite scale. J Soc Sci. 2014;40(3):309-336. https://doi.org/10.15820/khjss.2014.40.3.014
  23. Han DS, Kim HI. Risk and communication: communication effects on social acceptance of nuclear power. Crisisonomy. 2011; 7(2):1-22.
  24. Oh MY, Choi JM, Kim HS. Stigma effect of technology with risk: the impact of stigma on nuclear power on the perception and acceptance of products based on radiation technology. Korean J Journal Commun Stud. 2008;52(1):467-500.
  25. Kim ES. A social analysis of the limitation of governmental MERS risk communication. Crisisonomy. 2015;11(10): 91-109.
  26. Ha HY. Conflict resolution through judicial decision between a local government and private parties. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2017;51(3):411-441.
  27. Shim JS. Comparison of conflict frames between local residents and bureaucrats over construction of the Jeju naval base. Korean Inst Public Aff. 2012;50(4):221-249.
  28. Shin HK, Yang CS, Yang GY, Kim SW. A frame analysis on the 765 kV transmission line construction: focusing on the cognition of the residents in Gijang County and Miryang City. Korean Public Adm Q. 2014;26(2):241-266.
  29. Lewicki R, Gray B, Elliott M. Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003.
  30. Moore CW. The mediation process: practical strategies for resolving conflict. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
  31. Kriesberg L. Constructive conflicts: from escalation to resolution. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; 2003.
  32. Kim HL. A study of the effect of the characteristics of public conflict, the intervention of non-governmental organizations and conflict management strategies in public conflict resolution: focusing on the contingency model of conflict resolution. Korean J Policy Anal Eval. 2012;22(4):345-369.
  33. Lim DJ. A study on the current conditions of public conflict management and the factors of conflict resolution. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2011;45(2):291-318.
  34. Ha HY. Analysis on critical factors of conflict resolution in public sectors: focused on the effect of major factors in conflict management. Korean Public Adm Rev. 2007;41(3):273-296.
  35. Lee SW. How to resolve the public conflicts in Korean society. Seoul, Korea: Hodunamu; 2013.
  36. Bozeman B. Public-value failure: when efficient markets may not do. Public Adm Rev. 2022;62(2):145-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00165
  37. Meynhardt T. Public value inside: what is public value creation? Int J Public Adm. 2009;32(3-4):192-219. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732632
  38. Alford J. The limits to traditional public administration or rescuing public value from misrepresentation. Australian J Public Adm. 2008;67(3):357-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00593.x
  39. Alford J, O'Flynn J. Marking sense of public value: concepts, critiques, and emergent meanings. Int J Public Adm. 2009;35(3-4): 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900690902732731
  40. Stoker G. Public value management: a new narrative foe networked governance? American Review of Public Administration. 2006; 36(1):41-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583
  41. Choi YN. The study on factors determining the awareness of public value: focusing on the moderating effect of communication between citizens and government. Korean J Local Gov Adm Stud. 2017;31(2):241-260.
  42. Kang JM. Diagnosis and prospect of communication crisis in Korean society. Proceedings of the Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies (KSJCS); 2011 May 26; Seoul, Korea. p. 49-65.
  43. Korea Academy of Nuclear Safety. Perception survey of nuclear energy and radiation for communication with opinion leaders. Gwacheon, Korea: Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning; 2015.
  44. Andersen LB, Jorgensen TB, Kjeldsen AM, Pedersen LH, Vrangbaek K. Public value dimensions: Developing and testing a multidimensional classification. Int J Public Adm. 2012;35(11):715-728. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.670843
  45. Bozeman B. Public value mapping of science outcomes: theory and method. Washington, DC: Center for Science, Policy, & Outcomes; 2003.
  46. Schilling K. Peacebuilding & conflict transformation: a resource book. Berlin, Germany: CPS/BfdW Bafoussam; 2012.
  47. Austin B, Fischer M, Giessmann HJ. Advancing conflict transformation: the Berghof handbook II. Leverkusen, Germany: Barbara Budrich Publishers; 2011.
  48. Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ. Negotiation in social conflict. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press; 1993.
  49. Korea Institute of Public Administration. A study on corruption trends in the public sector. Seoul, Korea: Korea Institute of Public Administration; 2011.
  50. Quirk PJ. The cooperative resolution of policy conflict. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1989;83(3):905-921. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962066
  51. Mischnick R. Nonviolent conflict transformation: training manual for a training of trainers course. Wustrow, Germany: KURVE Wustrow Centre for Training and Networking in Nonviolent Action; 2007
  52. Lee BJ, Cho SK. The validity of a scale to measure the quality of societal communication. Communication Theories. 2015;11(1): 144-185.
  53. Kim J. Differentiation of cyber public sphere and conditions for deliberative democracy. Korean Journal of Sociology. 2005;39(2): 34-68.
  54. Bohman J. Public deliberation: pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000.
  55. Youn SM. Communication theory on media convergence: focusing on the concept of social communication structure and its historical change. Korean J Broadcast Telecommun Res. 2009; (68):9-48.