Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2017.04.005

Differentiated influences of risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance targets: Evidence from Korea  

Roh, Seungkook (Policy Research Center, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI))
Lee, Jin Won (School of Management, Xiamen University)
Publication Information
Nuclear Engineering and Technology / v.49, no.5, 2017 , pp. 1090-1094 More about this Journal
Abstract
The determinants of the public's nuclear power acceptance have received considerable attention as decisive factors regarding nuclear power policy. However, the contingency of the relative importance of different determinants has been less explored. Building on the literature of psychological distance between the individual and the object, the present study demonstrates that the relative effects of different types of perceived risks regarding nuclear power generation differ across acceptance targets. Using a sample of Korea, our results show that, regarding national acceptance of nuclear power generation, perceived risk from nuclear power plants exerts a stronger negative effect than that from radioactive waste management; however, the latter exerts a stronger negative effect than the former on local acceptance of a nuclear power plant. This finding provides implications for efficient public communication strategy to raise nuclear power acceptance.
Keywords
Acceptance Targets; Nuclear Power Acceptance; Psychological Distance; Public Communication; Risk Perceptions;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 2  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 P. Upham, C. Oltra, A. Boso, Towards a cross-paradigmatic framework of the social acceptance of energy systems, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 8 (2015) 100-112.   DOI
2 S.-H. Park, W.-J. Jung, T.-H. Kim, S.-Y.T. Lee, Can renewable energy replace nuclear power in Korea? An economic valuation analysis, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 48 (2016) 559-571.   DOI
3 H.-H. Rogner, World outlook for nuclear power, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 291-295.   DOI
4 A. Glaser, From Brokdorf to Fukushima: the long journey to nuclear phase-out, Bull. Atom. Sci. 68 (2012) 10-21.
5 V.H. 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.   DOI
6 J.B. Chung, H.-K. Kim, Competition, economic benefits, trust, and risk perception in siting a potentially hazardous facility, Landscape Urban Plan 91 (2009) 8-16.   DOI
7 L. Sjoberg, B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg, Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees, Risk Anal. 11 (1991) 607-618.   DOI
8 L. Sjoberg, Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository, Safety Sci. 47 (2009) 542-546.   DOI
9 J.W. Stoutenborough, S.G. Sturgess, A. Vedlitz, Knowledge, risk, and policy support: public perceptions of nuclear power, Energy Pol. 62 (2013) 176-184.   DOI
10 Y.S. Choi, J.S. Kim, B.W. Lee, Public's perception and judgment on nuclear power, Ann. Nucl. Energy 27 (2000) 295-309.   DOI
11 N. Liberman, M.D. Sagristano, Y. Trope, The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38 (2002) 523-534.   DOI
12 Y. Trope, N. Liberman, Construal-level theory of psychological distance, Psychol. Rev. 117 (2010) 440-463.   DOI
13 C.C. Clogg, E. Petkova, A. Haritou, Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models, Am. J. Sociol. 100 (1995) 1261-1293.   DOI
14 M. Sherif, Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict, Am. J. Sociol. 63 (1958) 349-356.   DOI
15 I.-G. Kim, S.-S. Kim, G.-N. Kim, G.-S. Han, J.-W. Choi, Reduction of radioactive waste from remediation of uranium-contaminated soil, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 48 (2016) 840-846.   DOI
16 P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (2003) 879-903.   DOI
17 B. Hidalgo, M. Goodman, Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am. J. Public Health 103 (2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300897.   DOI
18 R.M. O'Brien, A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors, Qual. Quant. 41 (2007) 673-690.   DOI
19 P. Slovic, J. Flynn, C. Mertz, M. Poumadere, C. Mays, Nuclear power and the public: a comparative study of risk perception in France and the United States, in: O. Renn, B. Rohrmann (Eds.), Cross-cultural Risk Perception, Springer, Boston, MA, 2000, pp. 55-102.
20 S. Ansolabehere, D.M. Konisky, Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants, Public Opin. Quart. 73 (2009) 1-12.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 J. Cohen, A power primer, Psychol. Bull. 112 (1992) 155-159.   DOI
23 R.E. Kasperson, G. Berk, D. Pijawka, A.B. Sharaf, J. Wood, Public opposition to nuclear energy: retrospect and prospect, Sci. Technol. Hum. Val. 5 (1980) 11-23.   DOI
24 K.J. Lee, Y.E. Lee, Public Acceptance of Nuclear Energy in Korea, Proceedings of the Fourth Nuclear Energy Symposium Energy Future in Asia/Pacific Region, Taiwan, China, 1999.
25 D.J. Webber, Is nuclear power just another environmental issue? An analysis of California voters, Environ. Behav. 14 (1982) 72-83.   DOI