Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제55권12호
  • /
  • Pages.4617-4627
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An empirical study of the risk-benefit perceptions between the nuclear and non-nuclear groups towards the nuclear power plant in Bangladesh

  • Md Shafiqul Islam (Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Dhaka) ;
  • Swapnil Roy (Institute of Statistical Research and Training, University of Dhaka) ;
  • Sadia Lena Alfee (Environmental Risk Management, School of Social & Environmental Sustainability, University of Glasgow) ;
  • Animesh Pal (Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of Dhaka)
  • 투고 : 2022.11.26
  • 심사 : 2023.07.27
  • 발행 : 2023.12.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Public perception of benefit over risk is the de facto factor in planning, construction, operation, halting, or phase-out of a nuclear power plant in any country. Even if there are multiple pathways of perceiving risk/benefit among different stakeholders, the perception of nuclear and non-nuclear groups needs to be individually tracked to help understand sectoral influence. Related studies were basically performed between the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and non-STEM groups. However, there are no such studies between the nuclear and non-nuclear groups. This study investigated the risk-benefit perceptions between the nuclear group (N = 102) and the non-nuclear group (N = 467) using survey data to measure their stake and identify the underlying factors by validating the hypotheses, through descriptive analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM). Results showed that risk perception is significantly high in the non-nuclear group (as the P-value is > 0.001 to <0.01) while the benefit perception is slightly low in the nuclear group (as the P-value is > 0.01 to <0.05). The non-nuclear group was significantly influenced by risk perception due to a lack of involvement in nuclear activities. Notably, the nuclear group is less interactive in disseminating nuclear energy benefits to the non-nuclear group. Surprisingly, misperceptions and lack of confidence about the benefits of nuclear energy also exist in the nuclear group. The study emphasizes debunking nuclear myths in the nuclear and non-nuclear groups through meaningful interactions and demands effective public awareness-building programs by competent authorities for the growth of the nuclear industry.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. International Energy Agency (IEA), Global Electricity Generation Mix, 2010-2020 - Charts - Data & Statistics, IEA, 2021. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-electricity-generation-mix-2010-2020. (Accessed 3 July 2023).
  2. World Nuclear Association (WNA), Nuclear Power in Bangladesh - World Nuclear Association, 2023. World-Nuclear.org. https://world-nuclear.org/informationlibrary/country-profiles/countries-a-f/bangladesh.aspx. (Accessed 3 July 2023).
  3. Bangladesh National Portal (BNP), Construction of Rooppur Nuclear Power Plant Project, 2023. Www.rooppurnpp.gov.bd. (Accessed 3 July 2023). http://www.rooppurnpp.gov.bd/.
  4. S. Perez, C.D. Auwer, T. Pourcher, S. Russo, C. Drouot, M.R. Beccia, G. Creff, F. Fiorelli, A. Leriche, F. Castagnola, P. Steichen, G. Carle, H. Michel, N. Glaichenhaus, D. Josse, N. Pottier, D. Provitolo, Comparative analysis of the perception of nuclear risk in two populations (expert/non-expert) in France, Energy Rep. 6 (2020) 2288-2298, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2020.08.015.
  5. S.S. Ho, A.D. Leong, J. Looi, L. Chen, N. Pang, E. Tandoc, Science literacy or value predisposition? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy, Environ. Commun. 13 (2018) 457-471, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394891.
  6. G.T. Gardner, A.R. Tiemann, L.C. Gould, D.R. Deluca, L.W. Doob, J.A.J. Stolwijk, Risk and benefit perceptions, acceptability judgments, and self-reported actions toward nuclear power, J. Soc. Psychol. 116 (1982) 179-197, https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1982.9922770.
  7. Y. Tanaka, Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34 (2004) 1147-1165, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02000.x.
  8. 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.
  9. 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 (2012) 333-347, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x.
  10. 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.
  11. Y. Sugiawan, S. Managi, Public acceptance of nuclear power plants in Indonesia: portraying the role of a multilevel governance system, Energy Strategy Rev. 26 (2019), 100427, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100427.
  12. R. Baggott, Nuclear power at druridge bay, Parliam. Aff. 51 (1998) 384-396, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a028804.
  13. J. Juozaitis, Chapter 7 - international conflicts related to energy: a case study of Lithuania's opposition to the construction of Russian nuclear power plants near its borders, in: M. Tvaronaviciene, B. Slusarczyk (Eds.), Energy Transformation towards Sustainability, Elsevier, 2020, pp. 133-162, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-817688-7.00007-0.
  14. T. O'Riordan, R. Kemp, M. Purdue, How the sizewell B inquiry is grappling with the concept of acceptable risk, J. Environ. Psychol. 5 (1985) 69-85, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-4944(85)80039-6.
  15. M.L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, S.M. Johnson, The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits, J. Behav. Decis. Making 13 (2000) 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1%3C1::aid-bdm333%3E3.0.co;2-s.
  16. S. Ruggiero, T. Onkila, V. Kuittinen, Realizing the social acceptance of community renewable energy: a process-outcome analysis of stakeholder influence, Energy Res. Social Sci. 4 (2014) 53-63, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.09.001.
  17. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Stakeholder Involvement throughout the Life Cycle of Nuclear Facilities, Iaea.org., 2011. https://www.iaea.org/publications/8694/stakeholder-involvement-throughout-the-life-cycle-of-nuclear-facilities. (Accessed 13 May 2023).
  18. Y. Yan, F. Lu, A survey and analysis on the sense of nuclear safety & security for the public: a Chinese perspective, Sustainability 10 (2018) 2495, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072495.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. T. Perko, B. Adam, K.R. Stassen, The differences in perception of radiological risks: lay people versus new and experienced employees in the nuclear sector, J. Risk Res. 18 (2014) 40-54, https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.879488.
  22. J. Harris, M. Hassall, G. Muriuki, C. Warnaar-Notschaele, E. McFarland, P. Ashworth, The demographics of nuclear power: comparing nuclear experts', scientists' and non-science professionals' views of risks, benefits and values, Energy Res. Social Sci. 46 (2018) 29-39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.05.035.
  23. P. Slovic, Understanding perceived risk: 1978-2015, environ: sci. And policy for Sus, Development (Cambridge, U. K.) 58 (2015) 25-29, https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2016.1112169.
  24. S. Rothman, S.R. Lichter, Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy, Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 81 (1987) 383-404, https://doi.org/10.2307/1961958.
  25. J.I.M. 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.
  26. S.L. Alfee, M.S. Islam, Assessment of public perception towards the radioactive waste management of Bangladesh, Prog. Nucl. Energy 140 (2021), 103916, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103916.
  27. A.S. Mollah, S. Sattar, M.A. Hossain, A.Z.M. Salahuddin, H.A. Rashid, Prospects of nuclear energy for sustainable energy development in Bangladesh, Int. J. Nucl. Energy Sci. Technol. 5 (2015) 28, https://doi.org/10.14355/ijnese.2015.05.004.
  28. S.N. Sadia, M.I. Hosan, S. Ahmed, Communal observation towards Rooppur nuclear power plant in Bangladesh, All Rights Reserved Journal of Electrical Energy Systems and Energy Conversion 3 (2018), 1 Page 1-13 © MANTECH PUBLICATIONS 2018, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329183921_Communal_Observation_towards_Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant_in_Bangladesh. (Accessed 3 July 2023).
  29. S. Ahmed, M.I. Hosan, A. Begum, A.F.M.M. Rahman, M.A. Razzaque, Q.M. I. Hasani, Public awareness and stakeholder involvement for Bangladesh's nuclear power plant, Energy Strategy Rev. 32 (2020), 100564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2020.100564.
  30. B.-M. Drottz-Sjoberg, L. Sjoberg, Risk perception and worries after the chernobyl accident, J. Environ. Psychol. 10 (1990) 135-149, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80124-0.
  31. J. Hughey, E. Sundstrom, Perceptions of three mile island and acceptance of a nuclear power plant in a distant community, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 18 (1988) 880-890, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01181.x.
  32. K. Bickerstaff, P. Simmons, N. Pidgeon, Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizen - state relationships, Environ. Plann.: Econ. Space 40 (2008) 1312-1330, https://doi.org/10.1068/a39150.
  33. 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.
  34. S. Wang, J. Wang, S. Lin, J. Li, Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: the role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement, Energy Pol. 126 (2019) 352-360, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.040.
  35. X. Guo, H. Zhao, Z. He, Examining the influence of public participation on public acceptance of nuclear power plants: the case study of Qinshan NPP, China, J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 58 (2020) 322-332, https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2020.1828196.
  36. J.W. Kotrlik, J.E. Bartlett, C.C. Higgins, Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research, Inf. Technol. Learn. Perform J. 19 (1) (2001).
  37. M.I. Hosan, M.J. Dewan, M.H. Sahadath, D. Roy, D. Roy, Assessment of public knowledge, perception, and acceptance of nuclear power in Bangladesh, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 55 (4) (2022) 1410-1419, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2022.12.003.
  38. M.S. Islam, A.H. Khan, M.S. Rana, Knowledge, belief, and attitude of Bangladeshi youth toward the development of nuclear power, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 7 (2021) 271-283, https://doi.org/10.3897/nucet.7.69414.
  39. E. Singer, P. Endreny, Reporting on Risk: How the Mass Media Portray Accidents, Diseases, Other Hazards, Russel Sage, New York, 1993.
  40. J.L. Durfee, "Social change" and "status quo" framing effects on risk perception, Sci. Commun. 27 (2006) 459-495, https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005285334.
  41. P. Slovic, Baruch Fischhoff, S. Lichtenstein, Perceived Risk: Psychological Factors and Social Implications, The Royal Society, 1981. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspa.1981.0073. (Accessed 3 July 2023).
  42. C.E. Dallas, Medical lessons learned from chernobyl relative to nuclear detonations and failed nuclear reactors, Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 6 (2012) 330-334, https://doi.org/10.1001/dmp.2012.72.
  43. D. Deng, L. Zhang, M. Dong, R.E. Samuel, A. Ofori-Boadu, M. Lamssali, Radioactive waste: a review, Water Environ. Res. 92 (2020) 1818-1825, https://doi.org/10.1002/wer.1442.
  44. J.N. Druckman, The implications of framing effects for citizen competence, Polit. Behav. 23 (2001) 225-256, https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015006907312.
  45. S. Alvi, S.M.N. Nawaz, U. Khayyam, How does one motivate climate mitigation? Examining energy conservation, climate change, and personal perceptions in Bangladesh and Pakistan, Energy Res. Social Sci. 70 (2020), 101645, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101645.