Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A framework of examining the factors affecting public acceptance of nuclear power plant: Case study in Saudi Arabia

  • Salman M. Alzahrani (Nuclear Science Research Institute, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)) ;
  • Anas M. Alwafi (Nuclear Science Research Institute, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST)) ;
  • Salman M. Alshehri (Nuclear Science Research Institute, King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST))
  • Received : 2022.07.01
  • Accepted : 2022.11.16
  • Published : 2023.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Saudi National Atomic Energy project aims to adopt peaceful nuclear technologies and be part of the country's energy mix. As emerging nuclear energy, it is essential to understand public concerns and acceptability of nuclear energy, as well as the factors influencing acceptance to develop nuclear energy policy and implement nuclear energy programs. The purpose of this study is to analyze the public attitudes and acceptance of nuclear energy among Saudi Arabian citizens by utilizing protection motivation theory and theory of planned behavior. A total of 1,404 participants answered a questionnaire which was distribute by convenience sampling approach. A Structural Equation Modeling framework was constructed and analyzed to understand public behavior toward building the country's first Nuclear Power Plant (NPP). Before analyzing the data, the model was validated. The research concluded that the benefits of nuclear power plants were essential in determining people's acceptance of NPPs. Surprisingly, the effect of the perceived benefits was found higher than the effect of the perceived risks to the acceptance. Furthermore, the public's participation in this study revealed that the NPPs location has a significant impact on their acceptance. Based on the finding, several policy implementations were suggested. Finally, the study's model results would benefit scholars, government agencies, and the business sector in Saudi Arabia and worldwide.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST), Saudi Arabia for their support.

References

  1. M.A. Salam, S.A. Khan, Transition towards sustainable energy production-a review of the progress for solar energy in Saudi Arabia, Energy Explor. Exploit. 36 (1) (2018) 3-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598717737442
  2. G. A. f. S. i. S. A. Gas,, Detailed Results of Census 2010, 2010.
  3. K. Almutairi, G. Thoma, A. Durand-Morat, Ex-ante analysis of economic, social and environmental impacts of large-scale renewable and nuclear energy targets for global electricity generation by 2030, Sustainability 10 (8) (2018) 2884.
  4. Y.A. Amran, Y.M. Amran, R. Alyousef, H. Alabduljabbar, Renewable and sustainable energy production in Saudi Arabia according to saudi vision 2030; current status and future prospects, J. Clean. Prod. 247 (2020), 119602.
  5. J. Naser, A. Ahmad, Middle East Nuclear Energy Monitor: Country Perspectives 2018, 2018.
  6. E. Jun, W.J. Kim, Y.H. Jeong, S.H. Chang, Measuring the social value of nuclear energy using contingent valuation methodology, Energy Pol. 38 (3) (2010) 1470-1476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.11.028
  7. Y. Kim, W. Kim, M. Kim, An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy, Energy Pol. 66 (2014) 475-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.11.039
  8. A.K.S. Ong, Y.T. Prasetyo, J.M.L.D. Salazar, J.J.C. Erfe, A.A. Abella, M.N. Young, T. Chuenyindee, R. Nadlifatin, A.A.N.P. Redi, Investigating the acceptance of the reopening bataan nuclear power plant: integrating protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 54 (3) (2022) 1115-1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.08.032
  9. P. Ifinedo, Understanding information systems security policy compliance: an integration of the theory of planned behavior and the protection motivation theory, Comput. Secur. 31 (1) (2012) 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2011.10.007
  10. Y.S. Choi, S.H. Lee, N.Z. Cho, B.W. Lee, Development of the public attitude model toward nuclear power in korea, Ann. Nucl. Energy 25 (12) (1998) 923-936. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4549(97)00081-9
  11. Y.B. Kurata, Y.T. Prasetyo, A.K.S. Ong, R. Nadlifatin, T. Chuenyindee, Factors affecting perceived effectiveness of typhoon vamco (ulysses) flood disaster response among filipinos in luzon, Philippines: an integration of protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 67 (2022), 102670.
  12. A.K.S. Ong, Y.T. Prasetyo, F.C. Lagura, R.N. Ramos, K.M. Sigua, J.A. Villas, M.N. Young, J.F.T. Diaz, S.F. Persada, A.A.N.P. Redi, Factors affecting intention to prepare for mitigation of "the big one" earthquake in the Philippines: integrating protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 63 (2021), 102467.
  13. Y.T. Prasetyo, A.M. Castillo, L.J. Salonga, J.A. Sia, J.A. Seneta, Factors affecting perceived effectiveness of covid-19 prevention measures among filipinos during enhanced community quarantine in luzon, Philippines: integrating protection motivation theory and extended theory of planned behavior, Int. J. Infect. Dis. 99 (2020) 312-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.07.074
  14. S. Roh, D. Kim, Effect of fukushima accident on public acceptance of nuclear energy (fukushima accident and nuclear public acceptance), Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plann. 12 (6) (2017) 565-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2016.1230797
  15. E.R. Frederiks, K. Stenner, E.V. Hobman, Household energy use: applying behavioural economics to understand consumer decision-making and behaviour, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 1385-1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.026
  16. J.R. Parkins, C. Rollins, S. Anders, L. Comeau, Predicting intention to adopt solar technology in Canada: the role of knowledge, public engagement, and visibility, Energy Pol. 114 (2018) 114-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.050
  17. C. Liu, Z. Zhang, S. Kidd, Establishing an objective system for the assessment of public acceptance of nuclear power in China, Nucl. Eng. Des. 238 (10) (2008) 2834-2838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2008.04.001
  18. X. Yuan, J. Zuo, C. Ma, Social acceptance of solar energy technologies in Chinadend users' perspective, Energy Pol. 39 (3) (2011) 1031-1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.003
  19. C. Sun, X. Zhu, Evaluating the public perceptions of nuclear power in China: evidence from a contingent valuation survey, Energy Pol. 69 (2014) 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.03.011
  20. J.W. Stoutenborough, S.G. Sturgess, A. Vedlitz, Knowledge, risk, and policy support: public perceptions of nuclear power, Energy Pol. 62 (2013) 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.098
  21. S. Owens, L. Driffill, How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context of energy, Energy Pol. 36 (12) (2008) 4412-4418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.09.031
  22. H. Oh, J.H. Hong, Citizens' trust in government and their willingness-to-pay, Econ. Lett. 115 (3) (2012) 345-347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.010
  23. D.N.-y. Mah, P. Hills, J. Tao, Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong, Energy Pol. 73 (2014) 368-390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.019
  24. T.C. Earle, M. Siegrist, H. Gutscher, Trust, risk perception and the tcc model of cooperation, in: Trust in Risk Management, Routledge, 2010, pp. 18-66.
  25. J. Flynn, W. Burns, C. Mertz, P. Slovic, Trust as a determinant of opposition to a high-level radioactive waste repository: analysis of a structural model, Risk Anal. 12 (3) (1992) 417-429.
  26. J. Helgeson, S. van der Linden, I. Chabay, The role of knowledge, learning and mental models in public perceptions of climate change related risks, in: Learning for sustainability in times of accelerating change, 2012, pp. 329-346.
  27. R.E. Kasperson, O. Renn, P. Slovic, H.S. Brown, J. Emel, R. Goble, J.X. Kasperson, S. Ratick, The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework, in: The Perception of Risk, Routledge, 2016, pp. 270-283.
  28. J. Kim, Y. Bang, W.J. Lee, Living near nuclear power plants and thyroid cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Environ. Int. 87 (2016) 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.006
  29. M. Greenberg, Energy sources, public policy, and public preferences: analysis of us national and site-specific data, Energy Pol. 37 (8) (2009) 3242-3249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.04.020
  30. A. Blowers, P. Leroy, Power, politics and environmental inequality: a theoretical and empirical analysis of the process of 'peripheralisation, Environ. Polit. 3 (2) (1994) 197-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644019408414139
  31. M. Vorkinn, H. Riese, Environmental concern in a local context: the significance of place attachment, Environ. Behav. 33 (2) (2001) 249-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121972972
  32. M.L. Lima, On the influence of risk perception on mental health: living near an incinerator, J. Environ. Psychol. 24 (1) (2004) 71-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(03)00026-4
  33. I.N. Luginaah, S.M. Taylor, S.J. Elliott, J.D. Eyles, Community responses and coping strategies in the vicinity of a petroleum refinery in oakville, ontario, Health Place 8 (3) (2002) 177-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1353-8292(01)00041-7
  34. M. Siegrist, B. Sutterlin, C. Keller, Why have some people changed their attitudes toward nuclear power after the accident in fukushima? Energy Pol. 69 (2014) 356-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.026
  35. L. Jacobs, R. Worthley, A comparative study of risk appraisal: a new look at risk assessment in different countries, Environ. Monit. Assess. 59 (2) (1999) 225-247. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006163606270
  36. E. Park, J.Y. Ohm, Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: effects of the fukushima nuclear accident, Energy Pol. 65 (2014) 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.037
  37. M. Yaqoot, P. Diwan, T.C. Kandpal, Review of barriers to the dissemination of decentralized renewable energy systems, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 58 (2016) 477-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.224
  38. L. Huang, Y. Zhou, Y. Han, J.K. Hammitt, J. Bi, Y. Liu, Effect of the fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110 (49) (2013) 19742-19747. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313825110
  39. S.S. Ho, A.D. Leong, J. Looi, L. Chen, N. Pang, E. Tandoc Jr., Science literacy or value predisposition? a meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy, Environmental Communication 13 (4) (2019) 457-471. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1394891
  40. N. Tsujikawa, S. Tsuchida, T. Shiotani, Changes in the factors influencing public acceptance of nuclear power generation in Japan since the 2011 fukushima daiichi nuclear disaster, Risk Anal. 36 (1) (2016) 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12447
  41. A.S. Alhakami, P. Slovic, A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit, Risk Anal. 14 (6) (1994) 1085-1096. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
  42. S. Orbell, I. Crombie, G. Johnston, Social cognition and social structure in the prediction of cervical screening uptake, Br. J. Health Psychol. 1 (1) (1996) 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.1996.tb00490.x
  43. M.L. Finucane, A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, S.M. Johnson, The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits, J. Behav. Decis. Making 13 (1) (2000) 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
  44. J.R. Eiser, J. Van der Pligt, Belief and values in the nuclear debate 1, J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 9 (6) (1979) 524-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1979.tb00813.x
  45. A.K.S. Ong, Y.T. Prasetyo, K.E.C. Velasco, E.D.R. Abad, A.L.B. Buencille, E.M. Estorninos, M.M.L. Cahigas, T. Chuenyindee, S.F. Persada, R. Nadlifatin, et al., Utilization of random forest classifier and artificial neural network for predicting the acceptance of reopening decommissioned nuclear power plant, Ann. Nucl. Energy 175 (2022), 109188.
  46. T. Yamane, Statistics: an introductory analysis, Tech. rep. (1967).
  47. G.D. Israel, Sampling the Evidence of Extension Program Impact, Citeseer, 1992.
  48. O. Indicators, Education at a Glance 2021, Editions OECD, 2021.
  49. K.B. Wright, Researching internet-based populations: advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services, J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 10 (3) (2005), JCMC1034.
  50. D.A. Dillman, Mail and Internet Surveys: the Tailored Design Method-2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
  51. X. Ru, S. Wang, Q. Chen, S. Yan, Exploring the interaction effects of norms and attitudes on green travel intention: an empirical study in eastern China, J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2018) 1317-1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.293
  52. B. Wright, P.H. Schwager, Online survey research: can response factors be improved? J. Internet Commer. 7 (2) (2008) 253-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332860802067730
  53. L.S. Paik, C. Shahani-Denning, R.W. Griffeth, An examination of attractiveness biases in the context of hiring through social networking sites, Journal of Organizational Psychology 14 (1) (2014).
  54. Y. Hao, Y. Guo, B. Tian, Y. Shao, What affects college students' acceptance of nuclear energy? evidence from China, J. Clean. Prod. 222 (2019) 746-759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.040
  55. 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
  56. D. Lili, Y. Ying, H. Qiuhui, L. Mengxi, Residents' acceptance of using desalinated water in China based on the theory of planned behaviour (tpb), Mar. Pol. 123 (2021), 104293.
  57. X. Ru, S. Wang, Q. Chen, S. Yan, Exploring the interaction effects of norms and attitudes on green travel intention: an empirical study in eastern China, J. Clean. Prod. 197 (2018) 1317-1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.293
  58. T. Goh, B. Ang, X. Xu, Quantifying drivers of co2 emissions from electricity generation-current practices and future extensions, Appl. Energy 231 (2018) 1191-1204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.174
  59. W.W. Chin, et al., The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling, Modern Methods Business Res. 295 (2) (1998) 295-336.
  60. J.C. Anderson, D.W. Gerbing, Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychol. Bull. 103 (3) (1988) 411.
  61. A. Kiraz, O. Canpolat, C. O zkurt, H. Ta,skin, Analysis of the factors affecting the industry 4.0 tendency with the structural equation model and an application, Comput. Ind. Eng. 150 (2020), 106911.
  62. T.-S. Su, P.-R. Lin, Y.-L. Shu, J.-M. Tseng, C.-S. Kao, Analysis of the Multi-Relationships and Their Structures for Safety Culture, 2012.
  63. J.F. Hair, D.J. Ortinau, D.E. Harrison, in: Essentials of Marketing Research, vol. 2, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY, 2010.
  64. I. Ghozali, An efficiency determinant of banking industry in Indonesia, Res. J. Finance Account. 5 (3) (2014) 18-26.
  65. T. Raykov, Coefficient alpha and composite reliability with interrelated nonhomogeneous items, Appl. Psychol. Meas. 22 (4) (1998) 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169802200407
  66. C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics, 1981.
  67. S.E.C. SECO, Tariffs and connection fees, URL, https://www.se.com.sa/en-us/customers/Pages/TariffRates.aspx.
  68. O. Alnatheer, The potential contribution of renewable energy to electricity supply in Saudi Arabia, Energy Pol. 33 (18) (2005), 2298-231.