Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제54권10호
  • /
  • Pages.3695-3702
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Nuclear power in jeopardy: The negative relationships between greenhouse gas/fine dust concerns and nuclear power acceptance in South Korea

  • Lee, Jin Won (Marketing Department, School of Business Administration, Jimei University) ;
  • Roh, Seungkook (Department of Public Administration, Korean National Police University)
  • 투고 : 2021.07.20
  • 심사 : 2022.05.30
  • 발행 : 2022.10.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

South Korea, a country that built a world-class nuclear power infrastructure, shifted to a nuclear phaseout during the previous government's reign. This shift was pursued as part of a larger task of electricity mix reform, and one of the integral motives for such reform is addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) and fine dust problems. Thus, verifying the relationships between the public's concerns about GHG/fine dust and their acceptance of nuclear power generation is essential for designing public communication strategies to revive nuclear power under the ongoing environmental regime. Our analysis using a nationwide survey sample of South Korea (N = 1009, through proportionated quota sampling method) showed that the more people are concerned about GHG and fine dust, the less they accept nuclear power. These relationships held even after controlling for the effect of a third variable-energy-related environmentalism. This finding means that despite past communication efforts positioning nuclear power as a generation source that can mitigate GHG/fine dust emissions and the widely accepted scientific evidence that supports such positioning, nuclear power in Korea is in jeopardy. Our finding provides implications for public communications and fundamental knowledge for research on the determinants of nuclear power acceptance.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. IAEA, Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, International Atomic Energy Agency. Available online: https://www.iaea.org/publications/12237/nuclearpower-reactors-in-the-world. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  2. Q. Li, S. Roh, J.W. Lee, Segmenting the South Korean public according to their preferred direction for electricity mix reform, Sustainability 12 (2020) 9053. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219053
  3. S. Ha, S. Tae, R. Kim, A study on the limitations of South Korea's National Roadmap for Greenhouse Gas Reduction by 2030 and suggestions for improvement, Sustainability 11 (2019) 3969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11143969
  4. A. Maennel, H.-G. Kim, Comparison of greenhouse gas reduction potential through renewable energy transition in South Korea and Germany, Energies 11 (2018) 206. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11010206
  5. H. Lee, South Korea looks to nuclear expansion in bid to meet climate targets, Bloomberg, 16 June 2022. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-16/korea-looks-to-nuclear-expansion-in-bid-to-meetclimate-targets. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  6. J. Chun, Controversies rising: we don't use any more because it's dangerous, but we recommend to you? (written in Korean), Chosun Biz, 21 November 2017. Available online: http://biz.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2017/10/24/2017102402034.html. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  7. J.-B. Chung, Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in KoreaeSmall successes but bigger challenges, Energy Pol. 145 (2020), 111724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111724
  8. H. Kim, E.-C. Jeon, Structural changes to nuclear energy industries and the economic effects resulting from energy transition policies in South Korea, Energies 13 (2020) 1806. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071806
  9. E. Lim, South Korea's nuclear dilemmas, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 2 (2019) 297-318. https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2019.1585585
  10. E. Lee, Can nuclear energy power South Korea's future? The Diplomat, 25 June 2022. Available online: https://thediplomat.com/2022/06/can-nuclearenergy-power-south-koreas-future. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  11. N.C. Bronfman, R.B. Jimenez, P.C. Arevalo, L.A. Cifuentes, Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources, Energy Pol. 46 (2012) 246e252.
  12. J.J. Cohen, J. Reichl, M. Schmidthaler, Re-focussing research efforts on the public acceptance of energy infrastructure: a critical review, Energy 76 (2014) 4-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.12.056
  13. E. Im, J.K. Kim, S.M. Woo, Study on the policy literacy of the Republic of Korea regarding nuclear and new-renewable energy, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54 (2022) 741-748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.08.018
  14. MOTIE, The 9th Basic Plan for Long-Term Electricity Supply and Demand (written in Korean), Ministry of Trade Industry and Energy Republic of Korea. Available online: https://www.motie.go.kr/motie/ne/presse/press2/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_seq_n_163670&bbs_cd_n_81. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  15. D. Shindell, C.J. Smith, Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels, Nature 573 (2019) 408-411. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1554-z
  16. G.-H. Lim, W.-J. Jung, T.-H. Kim, S.-Y.T. Lee, The cognitive and economic value of a nuclear power plant in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (2017) 609-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.10.007
  17. D. Kang, J.-E. Kim, Fine, ultrafine, and yellow dust: emerging health problems in Korea, J. Kor. Med. Sci. 29 (2014) 621-622. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2014.29.5.621
  18. A. Fifield, Y. Seo, Smog becomes a political issue in South Korean election, The Washington Post, 27 April 2017. Available online: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/smog-becomes-a-political-issue-insouth-korean-election/2017/04/27/afd55dba-1a2d-11e7-8598-9a99da559f9e_story.html. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  19. S. Lee, Korea's new comprehensive plan on fine dust and its implications for policy and research, Research in Brief 29 (2018) 1-7.
  20. M. Park, M. Barrett, T.G. Cassarino, Assessment of future renewable energy scenarios in South Korea based on costs, emissions and weather-driven hourly simulation, Renew. Energy 143 (2019) 1388-1396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.05.094
  21. WNA, Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources, World Nuclear Association. Available online: http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  22. R. Dones, T. Heck, M.F. Emmenegger, N. Jungbluth, Life cycle inventories for the nuclear and natural gas energy systems, and examples of uncertainty analysis, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 10 (2005) 10-23. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2004.12.181.2
  23. B. Van der Zwaan, The role of nuclear power in mitigating emissions from electricity generation, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 296-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.12.008
  24. T.-S. Chan, Concerns for environmental issues and consumer purchase preferences: a two-country study, J. Int. Consum. Market. 9 (1996) 43-55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J046v09n01_04
  25. A. Kollmuss, J. Agyeman, Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ. Educ. Res. 8 (2002) 239-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401
  26. I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (1991) 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  27. B. Meng, B.-L. Chua, H.B. Ryu, H. Han, Volunteer tourism (VT) traveler behavior: merging norm activation model and theory of planned behavior, J. Sustain. Tourism 28 (2020) 1947-1969. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1778010
  28. J.-B. Chung, E.-S. Kim, Public perception of energy transition in Korea: nuclear power, climate change, and party preference, Energy Pol. 116 (2018) 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.007
  29. A. Spence, W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon, I. Lorenzoni, Public perceptions of energy choices: the influence of beliefs about climate change and the environment, Energy Environ. 21 (2010) 385e407.
  30. A. Vainio, R. Paloniemi, V. Varho, Weighing the risks of nuclear energy and climate change: trust in different information sources, perceived risks, and willingness to pay for alternatives to nuclear power, Risk Anal. 37 (2017) 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12640
  31. B.D. Haig, What is a spurious correlation? Understand. Stat. 2 (2003) 125-132. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328031US0202_03
  32. A. Ward, Spurious correlations and causal inferences, Erkenntnis 78 (2013) 699-712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-012-9411-6
  33. A. Corner, D. Venables, A. Spence, W. Poortinga, C. Demski, N. Pidgeon, Nuclear power, climate change and energy security: exploring British public attitudes, Energy Pol. 39 (2011) 4823-4833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.037
  34. G. Perlaviciute, L. Steg, The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives, Renew. Energy 77 (2015) 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.12.020
  35. J.J. Kim, J. Hwang, Merging the norm activation model and the theory of planned behavior in the context of drone food delivery services: does the level of product knowledge really matter? J. Hospit. Tourism Manag. 42 (2020) 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.11.002
  36. M.H. Le, P.M. Nguyen, Integrating the theory of planned behavior and the norm activation model to investigate organic food purchase intention: evidence from vietnam, Sustainability 14 (2022) 816. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020816
  37. H. Han, S.S. Hyun, Drivers of customer decision to visit an environmentally responsible museum: merging the theory of planned behavior and norm activation theory, J. Trav. Tourism Market. 34 (2017) 1155-1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2017.1304317
  38. S. Danish, Ud-Din Khan, A. Ahmad, Testing the pollution haven hypothesis on the pathway of sustainable development: accounting the role of nuclear energy consumption, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 53 (2021) 2746-2752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.02.008
  39. X. Hu, W. Zhu, J. Wei, Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy, Energy 231 (2021), 120907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.120907
  40. N.F. Pidgeon, I. Lorenzoni, W. Poortinga, Climate change or nuclear power-No thanks! A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain, Global Environ. Change 18 (2008) 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.005
  41. P.C. Stern, T. Dietz, The value basis of environmental concern, J. Soc. Issues 50 (1994) 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x
  42. P.C. Stern, T. Dietz, T. Abel, G.A. Guagnano, L. Kalof, A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism, Hum. Ecol. Rev. 6 (1999) 81-97.
  43. P. Stern, Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, J. Soc. Issues 56 (2000) 407-424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
  44. A.M. Nordlund, J. Garvill, Effects of values, problem awareness, and personal norm on willingness to reduce personal car use, J. Environ. Psychol. 23 (2003) 339-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00037-9
  45. A.M. Nordlund, J. Garvill, Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior, Environ. Behav. 34 (2002) 740-756. https://doi.org/10.1177/001391602237244
  46. Y. Zhang, H.-L. Zhang, J. Zhang, S. Cheng, Predicting residents' proenvironmental behaviors at tourist sites: the role of awareness of disaster's consequences, values, and place attachment, J. Environ. Psychol. 40 (2014) 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.001
  47. A.C. Landon, K.M. Woosnam, B.B. Boley, Modeling the psychological antecedents to tourists' pro-sustainable behaviors: an application of the valuebelief-norm model, J. Sustain. Tourism 26 (2018) 957-972. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1423320
  48. E.M. Ghazali, B. Nguyen, D.S. Mutum, S.-F. Yap, Pro-environmental behaviours and Value-Belief-Norm theory: assessing unobserved heterogeneity of two ethnic groups, Sustainability 11 (2019) 3237. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123237
  49. S.C. Whitfield, E.A. Rosa, A. Dan, T. Dietz, The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception, Risk Anal. 29 (2009) 425-437. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01155.x
  50. J.I. De Groot, L. Steg, Morality and nuclear energy: perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy, Risk Anal. 30 (2010) 1363-1373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01419.x
  51. L. Steg, L. Dreijerink, W. Abrahamse, Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory, J. Environ. Psychol. 25 (2005) 415-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.08.003
  52. D. Bidwell, The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy, Energy Pol. 58 (2013) 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.010
  53. D.L. Paulhus, R.W. Robins, K.H. Trzesniewski, J.L. Tracy, Two replicable suppressor situations in personality research, Multivariate Behav. Res. 39 (2004) 303-328. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_7
  54. B. Hidalgo, M. Goodman, Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am. J. Publ. Health 103 (2013) 39-40. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300897
  55. V.H. Visschers, M. Siegrist, Find the differences and the similarities: relating perceived benefits, perceived costs and protected values to acceptance of five energy technologies, J. Environ. Psychol. 40 (2014) 117-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.05.007
  56. R. McNamee, Regression modelling and other methods to control confounding, Occup. Environ. Med. 62 (2005) 500-506. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2002.001115
  57. D.P. MacKinnon, J.L. Krull, C.M. Lockwood, Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect, Prev. Sci. 1 (2000) 173-181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026595011371
  58. Bloomberg, Hyundai Research Institute, Bloomberg. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/6647228Z:KS. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  59. R. Iliyasu, I. Etikan, Comparison of quota sampling and stratified random sampling, Biom. Biostat. Int. J. Rev 10 (2021) 24e27.
  60. J. Wang, S. Kim, Comparative analysis of public attitudes toward nuclear power energy across 27 European countries by applying the multilevel model, Sustainability 10 (2018) 1518. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051518
  61. S. Roh, J.W. Lee, Differentiated influences of benefit and risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance levels: evidence from Korea, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 54 (2017) 830-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2017.1331767
  62. C.Z. Mooney, R.D. Duval. Bootstrapping: a Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1993.
  63. W. Ascher, Bringing in the Future, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009, pp. 213-228.
  64. R.J. Lewicki, C. Brinsfield, Framing trust: trust as a heuristic, in: W.A. Donohue, R.G. Rogan, S. Kaufman (Eds.), Framing Matters: Perspectives on Negotiation Research and Practice in Communication, Peter Lang Publishing, New York, 2011, pp. 110-135.
  65. S. Roh, Big data analysis of public acceptance of nuclear power in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (2017) 850-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.12.015
  66. NEA, Nuclear Energy, Society and Nuclear Energy: Towards a Better Understanding, Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Available online: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-06/3677-society.pdf. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
  67. Y.-K. Lee, Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: from the users' perspective, Energy Pol. 147 (2020), 111761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111761
  68. V.H.M. Visschers, C. Keller, M. Siegrist, Climate change benefits and energy supply benefits as determinants of acceptance of nuclear power stations: investigating an explanatory model, Energy Pol. 39 (2011) 3621-3629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.064
  69. K. Bickerstaff, P. Simmons, N. Pidgeon, Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizendstate relationships, Environ. Plann. 40 (2008) 1312-1330. https://doi.org/10.1068/a39150
  70. L. Peng, Y. Zhang, F. Li, Q. Wang, X. Chen, A. Yu, Policy implication of nuclear energy's potential for energy optimization and CO2 mitigation: a case study of Fujian, China, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (2019) 1154-1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.01.016
  71. L. Cummings, The "trust" heuristic: arguments from authority in public health, Health Commun. 29 (2014) 1043-1056. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.831685
  72. S.-J. Yun, Nuclear power for climate mitigation? Contesting frames in Korean newspapers, Asia Eur. J. 10 (2012) 57-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-012-0326-2
  73. T. Kalinowski, The politics of climate change in a neo-developmental state: the case of South Korea, Int. Polit. Sci. Rev. 42 (2020) 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120924741
  74. A.K.S. Ong, Y.T. Prasetyo, J.M.L.D. Salazar, J.J.C. Erfe, A.A. Abella, M.N. Young, et al., Investigating the acceptance of the reopening Bataan nuclear power plant: integrating protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54 (2022) 1115-1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.08.032
  75. S. Roh, J.W. Lee, Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea, Energy Pol. 122 (2018) 727-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.018
  76. Y. He, Y. Li, D. Xia, T. Zhang, Y. Wang, L. Hu, et al., Moderating effect of regulatory focus on public acceptance of nuclear energy, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 51 (2019) 2034-2041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2019.06.002
  77. S. Roh, D. Kim, Positioning of major energy sources in Korea and its implications, Int. J. Energy Res. 41 (2017) 2421-2429. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3790