Nuclear Engineering and Technology

Korean Nuclear Society (한국원자력학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analyzing local perceptions toward the new nuclear research reactor in Thailand

  • Received : 2019.09.07
  • Accepted : 2020.05.12
  • Published : 2020.12.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Understanding public perception on nuclear research reactor is necessary for the policy maker to adopt such technology in Thailand, especially the locals who live in the proposed location. The study compared perceptions between the locals living near the proposed nuclear research reactor location (within 5 km) and those living in the outer region (5-15 km). Structural equation modeling technique was adopted by assuming casual relationships between latent variables including social status, information perception, trust, benefit perception and risk perception on the local acceptance of research reactor. The results showed that the strongest relationships for both the inner and the outer perimeters were from information perception toward technology acceptance via trust and benefit perception. While both zones showed similar results, the outer perimeter seemed to show slightly stronger effects than those in the inner perimeter.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was funded by the Thailand Institute of Nuclear Technology (TINT), Bangkok, Thailand. However, any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. The results were also not influenced by TINT.

References

  1. Ministry of Energy, Power Development Plan 2018e2037 (PDP 2018), Thailand, April 30 2019.
  2. A. Wipatayotin, Government defends plan for nuclear reactor: local allege project unsafe and mired in graft, Bangkok Post Online, August 11, accessed on, https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/1728255/govt-defendsplan-for-nuclear-reactor, 2019 (Accessed 6 September 2019).
  3. Y. Guo, T. Ren, When it is unfamiliar to me: local acceptance of planned nuclear power plants in China in the post-Fukushima era, Energy Pol. 100 (2017) 113-125.
  4. S. Roh, J.W. Lee, Differentiated influences of risk perceptions on nuclear power acceptance according to acceptance targets: evidence from Korea, Nucl. Eng. TechnoL. 49 (5) (2017) 1090-1094.
  5. Y. Wu, Public acceptance of constructing coastal/inland nuclear power plants in post-Fukushima China, Energy Pol. 101 (2017) 484-491.
  6. A. Stefanelli, R. Seidl, M. Siegrist, The discursive politics of nuclear waste: rethinking participatory approaches and public perceptions over nuclear waste storage repositories in Switzerland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 34 (2017) 72-81.
  7. V.P. Nguyen, M.S. Yim, Examination of different socioeconomic factors that contribute to the public acceptance of nuclear energy, Nucl. Eng. TechnoL. 50 (5) (2018) 767-772.
  8. L. Huang, Y. Zhou, Y. Han, J.K. Hammitt, J. Bi, Y. Liu, Effect of the Fukushima nuclear accident on the risk perception of residents near a nuclear power plant in China, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110 (49) (2013) 19742-19747.
  9. V.H.M. Visschers, M. Siegrist, How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster, Risk Anal. 33 (2) (2012) 333-347.
  10. E. Park, J.Y. Ohm, Factors influencing the public intention to use renewable energy technologies in South Korea: effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident, Energy Pol. 65 (2014) 198-211.
  11. Y. Wang, J. Li, A causal model explaining Chinese University students' acceptance of nuclear power, Prog. Nucl. Energy 88 (2016) 165-174.
  12. Y.H. Song, H.J. Kim, The effects of social trust on the public's trust in nuclear power organizations, benefit and risk perceptions, and acceptance of nuclear energy, in: Proceedings of the Transactions of the Korean Nuclear Society Autumn Meeting Gyeongju, Korea, October 26-27, 2017.
  13. L. Huang, R. He, Q. Yang, J. Chen, Y. Zhou, J.K. Hammitt, X. Lu, J. Bi, Y. Liu, The changing risk perception towards nuclear power in China after the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, Energy Pol. 120 (2018) 294-301.
  14. S.C. Whitfield, E.A. Rosa, A. Dan, T. Dietz, The future of nuclear power: value orientations and risk perception, Risk Anal. 29 (3) (2009) 425-437.
  15. Q. Xiao, H. Liu, M.W. Feldman, How does trust affect acceptance of a nuclear power plant (NPP): a survey among people living with Qinshan NPP in China, PloS One 12 (11) (2017) 1-16.
  16. Y. Song, D. Kim, D. Han, Risk communication in South Korea: social acceptance of nuclear power plants (NPPs), Publ. Relat. Rev. 39 (1) (2013) 55-56.
  17. Y. Ryu, S. Kim, S. Kim, Does trust matter? Analyzing the impact of trust on the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power energy, MDPI 10 (3) (2018) 1-19.
  18. 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 (6) (2011) 3621-3629.
  19. W. Li, H. Zhong, N. Jing, L. Fan, Research on the impact factors of public acceptance towards NIMBY facilities in Chinada case study on hazardous chemicals factory, Habitat Int. 83 (11-19) (2019) [14].
  20. S. Tantitaechochart, N. Paoprasert, K. Silva, Public perception of the nuclear research reactor in Thailand, in: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management, vols. 16-19, Bangkok, Thailand, December, 2018.
  21. The Bureau of Registration Administration, Statistical Population, 2018 accessed on, http://stat.dopa.go.th/stat/statnew/upstat_age.php (Accessed 6 September 2019).
  22. T. Yamane, Statistics: an Introductory Analysis, third ed., Harper and Row, New York, 1973.
  23. A. Joshi, S. Kale, S. Chandel, D. Pal, Likert scale: explored and explained, Br. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 7 (4) (2015) 396-403.
  24. S. Tatsuki, H. Hayashi, D.B. Zoleta-Nantes, M. Banba, K. Hasegawa, K. Tamura, The impact of risk perception, disaster schema, resources, intention, attitude, and norms upon risk aversive behavior among Marikina city residents: structural equation modeling with latent variables, in: Asian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Manila, Philippines, 2004, 66-75. March 5-6.
  25. M.H. Heather, Perceived risk and expected benefits impact social class differences in health risk, Ph.D. Philosophy Degree, Exp. Psychol. (2015). Univ. Toledo.
  26. Y. Kim, W. Kim, M. Kim, An international comparative analysis of public acceptance of nuclear energy, Energy Pol. 66 (2014) 475-483.
  27. S. Wang, J. Wang, S. Lin, J. Li, Public perceptions and acceptance of nuclear energy in China: the role of public knowledge, perceived benefit, perceived risk and public engagement, Energy Pol. 126 (2019) 352-360.
  28. E.R. Frederiks, K. Stenner, E.V. Hobman, Household energy use: applying behavioral economics to understand consumer decision-making and behavior, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 1385-1394.
  29. J.W. Stoutenborough, A. Vedlitz, The role of scientific knowledge in the public's perceptions of energy technology risks, Energy Pol. 96 (2016) 206-216.
  30. Y. Guo, Y. Wei, Government communication effectiveness on local acceptance of nuclear power: evidence from China, J. Clean. Prod. 218 (2019) 38-50.
  31. M. Ananyev, S. Guriev, Effect of income on trust: evidence from the 2009 economic crisis in Russia, Econ. J. Roy. Econ. Soc. 129 (619) (2019) 1082-1118.
  32. M. Frederiksen, C.A. Larsen, H.L. Lolle, Education and trust, Acta Sociol. 59 (4) (2016) 293-308.
  33. S. Komiak, I. Ilyas, The effects of perceived information quality and perceived system quality on trust and adoption of online reputation systems, in: Proceedings of the Sixteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, Peru, Lima, 2010, pp. 12-15. August.
  34. R.E. Schumacker, R.G. Lomax, A Beginner's Guide to Structural Equation Modeling, third ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, 2010.
  35. J.W. Osborne, A.B. Costello, J.T. Kellow, Best practices in exploratory factor analysis, in: J. Osborne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods, Sage Publishing, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2008, pp. 205-213.
  36. W. Lai, C. Chen, Behavioral intention of public transit passengerdthe role of service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and involvement, Transport Pol. 18 (2011) 318-325.
  37. S. Roh, D. Kim, Effect of Fukushima accident on public acceptance of nuclear energy (Fukushima accident and nuclear public acceptance), Energy Sources B Energy Econ. Plann. 12 (6) (2017) 565-569.
  38. W. Zhu, J. Wei, D. Zhao, Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: the role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception, Energy Pol. 88 (2016) 168-177.
  39. L. Sjoberg, B.M. Drottz-Sjoberg, Knowledge and risk perception among nu-clear power plant employees, Risk Anal. 11 (1991) 607-618.
  40. R.O. Rogers, in: R.A. Waller, V.T. Covello (Eds.), Residential Proximity, Perceived and Acceptable Risk. Low Probability, High Consequence Risk Analysis, Plenum, New York, 1984.
  41. B. Frantal, J. Maly, Close of renew? Factors affecting local community support for rebuilding nuclear power plants in the Czech Republic, Energy Pol. 104 (2017) 134-143.
  42. J. Nehhevajsa, Current national opinions in the U.S, in: Proceedings of the NRCP Symposium on Control of Exposure of the Public to Ionizing Radiation in the Event of Accident or Attack, 1981.
  43. M. Huppe, J. Weber, Effects of distance, age and sex upon attitudes toward nuclear power plants: an empirical study, Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Med. 202 (2/4) (1998/1999) 331-344.
  44. M. Dear, Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome, J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 58 (3) (1992) 288-300.

Cited by

  1. Youths Interests in the Biosphere and Sensitivity to Nuclear Power Technology in the UAE: With Discussions on Open Innovation and Technological Convergence in Energy and Water Sectors vol.6, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040180