1 |
N.C. Bronfman, R.B. Jimenez, P.C. Arevalo, L.A. Cifuentes, Understanding social acceptance of electricity generation sources, Energy Pol. 46 (2012) 246e252.
|
2 |
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.
DOI
|
3 |
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.
DOI
|
4 |
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.
DOI
|
5 |
S. Roh, D. Kim, Positioning of major energy sources in Korea and its implications, Int. J. Energy Res. 41 (2017) 2421-2429.
DOI
|
6 |
B.D. Haig, What is a spurious correlation? Understand. Stat. 2 (2003) 125-132.
DOI
|
7 |
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.
DOI
|
8 |
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.
|
9 |
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.
DOI
|
10 |
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.
DOI
|
11 |
A. Maennel, H.-G. Kim, Comparison of greenhouse gas reduction potential through renewable energy transition in South Korea and Germany, Energies 11 (2018) 206.
DOI
|
12 |
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).
|
13 |
J.-B. Chung, Public deliberation on the national nuclear energy policy in KoreaeSmall successes but bigger challenges, Energy Pol. 145 (2020), 111724.
DOI
|
14 |
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).
|
15 |
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.
DOI
|
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.
DOI
|
17 |
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.
DOI
|
18 |
S.-J. Yun, Nuclear power for climate mitigation? Contesting frames in Korean newspapers, Asia Eur. J. 10 (2012) 57-73.
DOI
|
19 |
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.
DOI
|
20 |
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.
DOI
|
21 |
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.
DOI
|
22 |
A. Ward, Spurious correlations and causal inferences, Erkenntnis 78 (2013) 699-712.
DOI
|
23 |
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
|
24 |
G. Perlaviciute, L. Steg, The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives, Renew. Energy 77 (2015) 259-267.
DOI
|
25 |
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.
DOI
|
26 |
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.
DOI
|
27 |
X. Hu, W. Zhu, J. Wei, Effects of information strategies on public acceptance of nuclear energy, Energy 231 (2021), 120907.
DOI
|
28 |
K. Bickerstaff, P. Simmons, N. Pidgeon, Constructing responsibilities for risk: negotiating citizendstate relationships, Environ. Plann. 40 (2008) 1312-1330.
DOI
|
29 |
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).
|
30 |
S. Roh, Big data analysis of public acceptance of nuclear power in Korea, Nucl. Eng. Technol. 49 (2017) 850-854.
DOI
|
31 |
Y.-K. Lee, Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: from the users' perspective, Energy Pol. 147 (2020), 111761.
DOI
|
32 |
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).
|
33 |
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.
DOI
|
34 |
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.
DOI
|
35 |
P.C. Stern, T. Dietz, The value basis of environmental concern, J. Soc. Issues 50 (1994) 65-84.
DOI
|
36 |
P. Stern, Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, J. Soc. Issues 56 (2000) 407-424.
DOI
|
37 |
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.
DOI
|
38 |
W. Ascher, Bringing in the Future, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009, pp. 213-228.
|
39 |
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.
|
40 |
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.
DOI
|
41 |
D. Kang, J.-E. Kim, Fine, ultrafine, and yellow dust: emerging health problems in Korea, J. Kor. Med. Sci. 29 (2014) 621-622.
DOI
|
42 |
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).
|
43 |
I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50 (1991) 179-211.
DOI
|
44 |
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.
DOI
|
45 |
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.
DOI
|
46 |
Bloomberg, Hyundai Research Institute, Bloomberg. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/6647228Z:KS. (Accessed 25 June 2022).
|
47 |
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.
DOI
|
48 |
D. Shindell, C.J. Smith, Climate and air-quality benefits of a realistic phase-out of fossil fuels, Nature 573 (2019) 408-411.
DOI
|
49 |
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).
|
50 |
S. Lee, Korea's new comprehensive plan on fine dust and its implications for policy and research, Research in Brief 29 (2018) 1-7.
|
51 |
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.
DOI
|
52 |
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).
|
53 |
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.
DOI
|
54 |
B. Van der Zwaan, The role of nuclear power in mitigating emissions from electricity generation, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 296-301.
DOI
|
55 |
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.
DOI
|
56 |
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.
|
57 |
A.M. Nordlund, J. Garvill, Value structures behind proenvironmental behavior, Environ. Behav. 34 (2002) 740-756.
DOI
|
58 |
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.
DOI
|
59 |
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.
DOI
|
60 |
B. Hidalgo, M. Goodman, Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am. J. Publ. Health 103 (2013) 39-40.
DOI
|
61 |
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.
DOI
|
62 |
L. Cummings, The "trust" heuristic: arguments from authority in public health, Health Commun. 29 (2014) 1043-1056.
DOI
|
63 |
R. McNamee, Regression modelling and other methods to control confounding, Occup. Environ. Med. 62 (2005) 500-506.
DOI
|
64 |
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.
DOI
|
65 |
E. Lim, South Korea's nuclear dilemmas, Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 2 (2019) 297-318.
DOI
|
66 |
D.P. MacKinnon, J.L. Krull, C.M. Lockwood, Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect, Prev. Sci. 1 (2000) 173-181.
DOI
|
67 |
R. Iliyasu, I. Etikan, Comparison of quota sampling and stratified random sampling, Biom. Biostat. Int. J. Rev 10 (2021) 24e27.
|
68 |
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.
DOI
|
69 |
T.-S. Chan, Concerns for environmental issues and consumer purchase preferences: a two-country study, J. Int. Consum. Market. 9 (1996) 43-55.
DOI
|
70 |
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.
DOI
|
71 |
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.
DOI
|
72 |
S. Roh, J.W. Lee, Differentiated effects of risk perception dimensions on nuclear power acceptance in South Korea, Energy Pol. 122 (2018) 727-735.
DOI
|
73 |
C.Z. Mooney, R.D. Duval. Bootstrapping: a Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, 1993.
|
74 |
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).
|
75 |
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.
DOI
|
76 |
D. Bidwell, The role of values in public beliefs and attitudes towards commercial wind energy, Energy Pol. 58 (2013) 189-199.
DOI
|
77 |
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.
DOI
|