Environmental and Resource Economics Review (자원ㆍ환경경제연구)

Korean Resource Economics Association (한국자원경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

원전 유치에 대한 태도의 결정요인: 지진 경험의 영향 및 전기요금 감면 효과

  • Kim, Jee Young (School of Economics, Yonsei University) ;
  • Oh, Hyungna (College of International Studies, Kyung Hee University)
  • 김지영 (연세대학교 경제학과) ;
  • 오형나 (경희대학교 국제대학 국제학과)
  • Received : 2017.12.21
  • Accepted : 2018.02.19
  • Published : 2018.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

리스크에 대한 개인의 태도와 원자력발전 수용성의 관계에 대한 기존의 연구가 다수 존재함에도 불구하고 최근 경주 지역을 중심으로 하여 빈번하게 발생하는 지진과 같은 자연재해의 경험이 원자력 수용성에 미치는 영향에 대해 분석한 국내 연구는 많지 않다. 본 연구는 2017년 3월 1,349명을 대상으로 실시된 설문조사 데이터를 기초로 하여 지진의 경험 및 정부의 보상조건(10년간 전기료 '10% 인하', '30% 인하', '50% 인하', '100% 인하')을 주요 변수로 하여 원전 유치 태도의 결정요인을 분석하였다. 프로빗 모형을 이용한 분석 결과에 따르면, 인근 원전의 존재 자체가 원전에 대한 위협감을 높이는 요인으로 작용하지는 않지만, 지진의 경험이 더해지면 원전 유치를 반대할 확률이 높아졌다. 물론, 정부의 보상 수준이 높아지면 원전 유치를 반대할 확률은 낮아진다. 그러나 10년간 전기료 무상지원이라는 보상이 주어진다고 해도 원전 유치에 찬성할 확률은 50%를 밑돈다. 특히 최근 지진이 빈번하게 발생하며 시민들의 지진 경험이 높아진다는 점을 고려할 때 원전 건설에 대한 국민의 동의를 얻어내기 위한 경제적 비용은 더욱 커질 것으로 예상된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 권태형.전영준, "후쿠시마 원전사고와 국내 원자력정책의 변화: 정책옹호연합모형의 적용", 행정논총, 제53권 제4호, 서울대학교 행정대학원, 2015, pp. 245-269.
  2. 산업통상자원부, "제8차 전력수급 기본계획", 2017.12.14. 보도자료.
  3. 송해룡.김원제, "원전주변 지역주민의 위험지각이 위험태도와 위험수용에 미치는 영향", 한국콘텐츠학회논문지, 제12권 제6호, 한국컨텐츠학회, 2012, pp. 238-248 https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2012.12.06.238
  4. 현대경제연구원, "친환경 전력정책의 비용과 편익", 2017년 8월, 서울: 동연구소, 2017, 1-18, VIP Report 700권 0호.
  5. 현대경제연구원, "현안과 과제: 원전의 '드러나지 않는 비용'", 2012년 11월, 서울; 동연구소, 2012.
  6. 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.
  7. Beltratti, A., G. Chichilnisky, and G. Heal, "Uncertain Future Preferences and Conservation. In Sustainability: Dynamics and uncertainty", Springer Netherlands, 1998, pp.257-275.
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.1.123
  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.484
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.042
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01094.x
  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.1.209
  13. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12100
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.120915
  15. 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.
  16. Gollier, C. and J. W. Pratt, "Risk Vulnerability and the Tempering Effect of Background Risk", Econometrica, Vol. 64, No. 5, 1996, pp. 1109-1123. https://doi.org/10.2307/2171958
  17. Heaton, J. and D. Lucas, "Portfolio Choice in the Presence of Background Risk", The Economic Journal, Vol. 110, No. 460, 2000, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00488
  18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.052
  19. Karp, L., "Global Warming and Hyperbolic Discounting", Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2005, pp. 261-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.02.005
  20. Kessides, I. N., "The Future of the Nuclear Industry Reconsidered: Risks, Uncertainties, and Continued Promise", Energy Policy, Vol. 48, 2012, pp. 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.008
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.107
  22. Klibanoff, P., M. Marinacci, and Mukerji, "A Smooth Model of Decision Making Under Ambiguity", Econometrica, Vol. 73, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1849-1892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00640.x
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb00533.x
  24. Laibson, D., "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 112, No. 2, 1997, pp. 443-478. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253
  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjq004
  26. 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.
  27. 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).
  28. Quiggin, J., "Background Risk in Generalized Expected Utility Theory", Economic Theory, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2003, pp. 607-611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-002-0311-x
  29. Siegrist, M. and V. H. Visschers, "Acceptance of Nuclear Power: the Fukushima Effect", Energy Policy, Vol. 59, 2013, pp. 112-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.051
  30. Stigler, G. J. and G. S. Becker, "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum", The American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 2, 1977, pp. 76-90.
  31. 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. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.2.941
  32. World Nuclear Association, "Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources", 2011, WNA Report, London.