Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.15266/KEREA.2018.27.1.139

The Determinants of Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Plant : The Effects of Earthquake Experience and the Reduction in Electricity Charges  

Kim, Jee Young (School of Economics, Yonsei University)
Oh, Hyungna (College of International Studies, Kyung Hee University)
Publication Information
Environmental and Resource Economics Review / v.27, no.1, 2018 , pp. 139-160 More about this Journal
Abstract
Using survey data of selected 1,349 individuals nationwide in Korea, we measure the influencing factors for the acceptance of nuclear power and estimates the probability of acceptance under several scenarios with different percentages of monetary compensation. Results of panel probit demonstrate that nuclear risk aversion tendency was found to be higher in case of female, younger age, past experience of extreme event such as an earthquake. However, the residents' residency nearby the nuclear power plant was not related to the risk-aversion tendency. In addition, we found that the nuclear acceptance is improved when the monetary compensation rate is increased. Although the policy demand intended to reduce GHG emissions in South Korea, the expansion of nuclear power is not be easy due to the occurrence of recent strong earthquakes because the risk attitude of an individual is influenced by subjective assessments formed through direct and indirect experiences of natural disasters such as an earthquake. Our results suggest that the opposition to construction of nuclear power plant is expected to be further intensified especially when combined with the experiences of threatening earthquakes. As a result, the debate and policy conflicts of nuclear power plants will consistently continue and large social costs are apparent for the acceptance of nuclear power plant.
Keywords
Risk preference; Nuclear; Monetary compensation; Panel-probit;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ansolabehere, S., "Public Attitudes Toward America's Energy Options: Insights for Nuclear Energy", MIT Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems, MIT-NES-TR-008, 2007.
2 Beltratti, A., G. Chichilnisky, and G. Heal, "Uncertain Future Preferences and Conservation. In Sustainability: Dynamics and uncertainty", Springer Netherlands, 1998, pp.257-275.
3 Callen, M., M. Isaqzadeh, J. Long, and C. Sprenger, "Violence and Risk Preference: Experimental Evidence from Afghanistan", American Economic Review, Vol. 104, No. 1, 2014, pp. 123-148.   DOI
4 Cameron, L. and M. Shah, "Risk-taking Behavior in the Wake of Natural Disasters", Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 50, No. 2, 2015, pp. 484-515.   DOI
5 Cassar, A., A. Healy, and C. Von Kessler, "Trust, Risk, and Time Preferences after a Natural Disaster: Experimental Evidence from Thailand", World Development, 94, 2017, pp. 90-105.   DOI
6 Costa-Font, J., C. Rudisill, and E. Mossialos, "Attitudes as an Expression of Knowledge and "Political Anchoring": The Case of Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom", Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2008, pp. 1273-1287.   DOI
7 Di Tella, R., S. Galiant, and E. Schargrodsky, "The Formation of Beliefs: Evidence from the Allocation of Land Titles to Squatters", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 122, No. 1, 2007, pp. 209-241.   DOI
8 Dobbie, M. F. and R. R. Brown, "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner", Risk analysis, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2014, pp. 294-308.   DOI
9 Frankenberg, E., J. Friedman, T. Gillespie, N. Ingwersen, R. Pynoos, I. U. Rifai, B. Sikoki, A. Steinberg, C. Sumantri, W. Suriastini, and D. Thomas, "Mental Health in Sumatra after the Tsunami", American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 98, No. 9, 2008, pp. 1671-1677.   DOI
10 Newport, F., "Americans still favor nuclear power a year after Fukushima", 2012, Gallup, March, 26. http://www.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-po.
11 Poortinga, W., N. F. Pidgeon, S. Capstick, and M. Aoyagi, "Public Attitudes to Nuclear Power and Climate Change in Britain Two Years After the Fukushima Accident", 2013, Cardiff (UK).
12 Quiggin, J., "Background Risk in Generalized Expected Utility Theory", Economic Theory, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2003, pp. 607-611.   DOI
13 Siegrist, M. and V. H. Visschers, "Acceptance of Nuclear Power: the Fukushima Effect", Energy Policy, Vol. 59, 2013, pp. 112-119.   DOI
14 Stigler, G. J. and G. S. Becker, "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum", The American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1977, pp. 76-90.
15 Voors, M. J., E. E. Nillesen, P. Verwimp, E. H. Bulte, R. Lensink, and D. P. Van Soest, "Violent Conflict and Behavior: a Field Experiment in Burundi", The American Economic Review, Vol. 102, No. 2, 2012, pp. 941-964.   DOI
16 World Nuclear Association, "Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources", 2011, WNA Report, London.
17 Huhtala, A. and P. Remes, "Quantifying the Social Costs of Nuclear Energy: Perceived Risk of Accident at Nuclear Power Plants", Energy Policy, Vol. 105, 2017, pp. 320-331.   DOI
18 Frey, B. S. and F. Oberholzer-Gee, "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-out", The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 4, 1997, pp. 746-755.
19 Gollier, C. and J. W. Pratt, "Risk Vulnerability and the Tempering Effect of Background Risk", Econometrica, Vol. 64, No. 5, 1996, pp. 1109-1123.   DOI
20 Heaton, J. and D. Lucas, "Portfolio Choice in the Presence of Background Risk", The Economic Journal, Vol. 110, No. 460, 2000, pp. 1-26.   DOI
21 Karp, L., "Global Warming and Hyperbolic Discounting", Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2005, pp. 261-282.   DOI
22 Kessides, I. N., "The Future of the Nuclear Industry Reconsidered: Risks, Uncertainties, and Continued Promise", Energy Policy, Vol. 48, 2012, pp. 185-208.   DOI
23 Kim, Y., M. Kim, and W. Kim, "Effect of the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster on Global Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy", Energy Policy, Vol. 61, 2013, pp. 822-828.   DOI
24 Klibanoff, P., M. Marinacci, and Mukerji, "A Smooth Model of Decision Making Under Ambiguity", Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1849-1892.   DOI
25 Kunreuther, H., D. Easterling, W. Desvouges, and P. Slovic., "Public Attitudes Toward Siting a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada", Risk Analysis, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1990, pp. 469-484.   DOI
26 송해룡.김원제, "원전주변 지역주민의 위험지각이 위험태도와 위험수용에 미치는 영향", 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 제12권 제6호, 한국컨텐츠학회, 2012, pp. 238-248   DOI
27 Laibson, D., "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112, No. 2, 1997, pp. 443-478.   DOI
28 Malmendier, U. and S. Nagel, "Depression Babies: Do Macroeconomic Experiences Affect Risk Taking?", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 126, NO. 1, 2011, pp. 373-416.   DOI
29 권태형.전영준, "후쿠시마 원전사고와 국내 원자력정책의 변화: 정책옹호연합모형의 적용", 행정논총, 제53권 제4호, 서울대학교 행정대학원, 2015, pp. 245-269.
30 산업통상자원부, "제8차 전력수급 기본계획", 2017.12.14. 보도자료.
31 현대경제연구원, "친환경 전력정책의 비용과 편익", 2017년 8월, 서울: 동연구소, 2017, 1-18, VIP Report 700권 0호.
32 현대경제연구원, "현안과 과제: 원전의 '드러나지 않는 비용'", 2012년 11월, 서울; 동연구소, 2012.