Nuclear Engineering and Technology

  • 제49권5호
  • /
  • Pages.1090-1094
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1738-5733(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-358X(eISSN)
한국원자력학회 (Korean Nuclear Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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)
  • 투고 : 2017.02.07
  • 심사 : 2017.04.10
  • 발행 : 2017.08.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.12.012
  2. H.-H. Rogner, World outlook for nuclear power, Energy Strategy Rev. 1 (2013) 291-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.12.001
  3. A. Glaser, From Brokdorf to Fukushima: the long journey to nuclear phase-out, Bull. Atom. Sci. 68 (2012) 10-21.
  4. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.03.064
  5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.11.005
  6. L. Sjoberg, B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg, Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees, Risk Anal. 11 (1991) 607-618. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00650.x
  7. L. Sjoberg, Precautionary attitudes and the acceptance of a local nuclear waste repository, Safety Sci. 47 (2009) 542-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.07.035
  8. 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
  9. Y.S. Choi, J.S. Kim, B.W. Lee, Public's perception and judgment on nuclear power, Ann. Nucl. Energy 27 (2000) 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4549(99)00056-0
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00535-8
  11. Y. Trope, N. Liberman, Construal-level theory of psychological distance, Psychol. Rev. 117 (2010) 440-463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
  12. M. Sherif, Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict, Am. J. Sociol. 63 (1958) 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1086/222258
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2016.01.017
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  15. B. Hidalgo, M. Goodman, Multivariate or multivariable regression? Am. J. Public Health 103 (2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300897.
  16. R.M. O'Brien, A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors, Qual. Quant. 41 (2007) 673-690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
  17. C.C. Clogg, E. Petkova, A. Haritou, Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models, Am. J. Sociol. 100 (1995) 1261-1293. https://doi.org/10.1086/230638
  18. 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.
  19. S. Ansolabehere, D.M. Konisky, Public attitudes toward construction of new power plants, Public Opin. Quart. 73 (2009) 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfp001
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.037
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224398000500203
  22. 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.
  23. D.J. Webber, Is nuclear power just another environmental issue? An analysis of California voters, Environ. Behav. 14 (1982) 72-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916582141004
  24. J. Cohen, A power primer, Psychol. Bull. 112 (1992) 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.05.003

피인용 문헌

  1. Searching for New Directions for Energy Policy: Testing the Cross-Effect of Risk Perception and Cyberspace Factors on Online/Offline Opposition to Nuclear Energy in South Korea vol.11, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051368
  2. What Do Potential Residents Really Want When Hosting a Nuclear Power Plant? An Empirical Study of Economic Incentives in South Korea vol.12, pp.7, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/en12071199
  3. Segmenting the South Korean Public According to Their Preferred Direction for Electricity Mix Reform vol.12, pp.21, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219053
  4. Extending the Coverage of the Trust-Acceptability Model: The Negative Effect of Trust in Government on Nuclear Power Acceptance in South Korea under a Nuclear Phase-Out Policy vol.14, pp.11, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/en14113343